Hagi & Hagi (No 2)

Watts J of the Supreme Court of Victoria considered an application by the respondent, Hagi, for an order that the applicant, also named Hagi, pay the respondent's costs of the proceeding. The dispute arose from an earlier application by the applicant seeking to set aside a default judgment obtained by the respondent. The applicant had been unsuccessful in that application.

The primary legal issue before Watts J was whether the applicant should be ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the proceeding, notwithstanding the general rule that costs follow the event. The court was required to consider the specific circumstances of the case, including the applicant's conduct and the merits of their application to set aside the default judgment, in determining whether to depart from the usual costs order.

Watts J reasoned that the applicant's application to set aside the default judgment lacked merit and was brought without sufficient grounds. The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated a good defence to the respondent's claim and had not provided a satisfactory explanation for their failure to appear or defend the original proceedings. Consequently, Watts J concluded that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify departing from the general rule.

Accordingly, Watts J ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the proceeding.