Hamilton v Meta Platforms, Inc. (Costs)

The case of Hamilton v Meta Platforms, Inc. (Costs) involved a proceeding brought by Mr Hamilton against Meta Platforms, Inc. The dispute centred on an application for a permanent stay of the proceeding, an application for a no-admission costs order (NACO), and the costs associated with these applications. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with deciding whether the special costs provisions in section 82 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA) displaced the general presumption that costs follow the event. The court was also to consider if the procedural course of the case warranted a departure from this general presumption.

The court examined whether the combination of the NACO provisions, the broad standing provisions, and the public interest in competition law cases justified a departure from the usual rule that costs follow the event. Mr Hamilton argued that the legislative intent behind section 82 of the CCA was to encourage competition claims by creating a special costs regime for those that meet specific criteria. However, the court found that the successful parties had not engaged in any conduct that disentitled them to costs and that the proceeding had been prosecuted efficiently. The application for a permanent stay was made promptly, heard, and succeeded, which heavily weighed in favour of awarding the respondents their costs. The court concluded that the balance of factors favoured awarding the respondents their costs, aligning with the usual order.

The court's reasoning was grounded in the result of the litigation and the nature of the issue, which was the likelihood that the proceeding would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The absence of any countervailing factors, such as disentitling conduct on the part of the respondents, further supported the decision to award costs against Mr Hamilton. The court clarified that even if it had adopted a neutral starting position without regard to the general presumption, it would have arrived at the same result. The court declined to vary the costs order made on 29 September 2023.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the applicant’s application to vary the costs order and ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application to vary the costs order. The decision underscores the importance of the result of the litigation and the efficiency with which the proceeding was prosecuted, reinforcing the general rule that costs follow the event.