Global v Sensis

Global brought proceedings against Sensis, seeking to enforce a judgment debt. The basis of the judgment was a statutory demand which had been set aside by consent following a settlement between the parties. The dispute came before the Federal Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining the appropriate allocation of costs. The court was required to decide whether the costs incurred by Global should be borne by Sensis, given that the statutory demand, which was the foundation for the judgment, had been set aside.

The court considered the principles of cost allocation in litigation, focusing on the concept of costs following the event. It examined the circumstances leading to the setting aside of the statutory demand and the subsequent settlement agreement. The court acknowledged that the setting aside of the judgment was a significant event in the proceedings, and the costs incurred by Global were directly related to the enforcement of the now-defunct judgment. The court concluded that there was no compelling reason why costs should not follow the event, as the setting aside of the judgment was a consequence of the parties' own actions.

In light of these considerations, the court ordered that the costs of the proceedings, including those related to the enforcement of the judgment, should be borne by Sensis. The court found that Sensis's actions in settling the statutory demand and subsequently appealing the judgment had led to the setting aside of the judgment and the need for Global to incur additional costs. The court's decision was based on the principle that costs should reflect the outcome of the litigation and the actions of the parties. This approach ensured that the costs were allocated in a manner that was fair and just, reflecting the reality of the proceedings.