Harbour Radio Pty Ltd v Trad

Harbour Radio Pty Ltd, a radio station operator, was engaged in a long-running defamation dispute with Trad, a former employee. The case had traversed the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, and the High Court, with the latest matter before the Court of Appeal concerning the interpretation of a costs order. The central issue was whether the Court of Appeal had intended to confirm the orders of the trial judge regarding costs. Additionally, the court had to determine the validity of a certificate of determination of costs, whether it should be set aside or permanently stayed, and whether the court had the jurisdiction to set aside the certificate. Moreover, the case involved an application for an extension of time to lodge a review of the costs assessment.

The court considered the extensive history of the case, noting the numerous appeals and cross-appeals that had occurred. The Court of Appeal had issued an order that the parties bear their own costs up to the end of the first appeal, with the successful party in the second appeal to be entitled to costs from the other party from that point onwards. The issue was whether this order confirmed the trial judge's costs orders or not. The court examined the language of the order and the context in which it was made, concluding that the Court of Appeal did intend to confirm the trial judge's orders as to costs. The court also considered the validity of the certificate of determination of costs and found that it was valid and should not be set aside or permanently stayed. Finally, the court granted the application for an extension of time to lodge a review of the costs assessment, allowing the applicant more time to challenge the costs orders.

In summary, the court held that the Court of Appeal's order confirmed the trial judge's costs orders, that the certificate of determination of costs was valid and should not be set aside or permanently stayed, and that the applicant was granted an extension of time to lodge a review of the costs assessment. The court's decision provides clarity on the costs orders in this complex and protracted defamation dispute.