Greenhill One Pty Ltd v Dreamtech Designs Pty Ltd (No 2)

Greenhill One Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, brought an action against Dreamtech Designs Pty Ltd, the first defendant, and others, for alleged infringement of copyright in architectural plans. The first defendant applied for summary judgment, which was dismissed as they failed to show they were entitled to it. The plaintiff then sought costs of the summary judgment application on the basis that costs should follow the event. The first defendant argued for a different costs order.

The court needed to determine whether the general rule that costs follow the event applied or if another order was more appropriate. The court considered the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the application, the outcome, and the conduct of the parties. The court noted that the first defendant's application was unsuccessful and that the plaintiff had to defend it, leading to additional costs. However, the court also considered that the application was not frivolous or vexatious, and both parties had acted reasonably.

After considering the principles and exercising its discretion, the court ordered that the first defendant must pay the plaintiff's costs of the hearing on 30 November 2018. However, for the summary judgment application itself, the court decided that the parties should bear their own costs in the proceeding. This balanced approach recognised the first defendant's unsuccessful application while also considering the overall conduct and circumstances of the case.