Hargood v Ohtl Public Company Ltd (No. 2)

Hargood v Ohtl Public Company Ltd (No. 2) was a case involving the plaintiff, Hargood, and the defendant, Ohtl Public Company Ltd. The dispute centred around a matter of costs, specifically when they should be payable, following the defendant's unsuccessful application for a stay of proceedings due to inappropriate forum. The case was heard in the relevant Australian court.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendant's costs, which were awarded against them following the dismissal of their application for a stay, should be payable immediately or if the case was an exception to the ordinary rule. The court was required to determine whether the case was indeed out of the ordinary and if the usual rule should be departed from.

In delivering the judgment, the court noted that the ordinary rule was that costs follow the event, meaning that costs are payable by the losing party. However, the court found that this case did not fall into the category of being out of the ordinary, and therefore, the defendant's costs should be payable forthwith as per the ordinary rule. The application by the defendant to have the case considered an exception was dismissed, and the court refused to depart from the usual practice regarding the payment of costs.

No further orders were made by the court beyond the refusal to grant the defendant's application and the determination of when the costs should be payable. The decision reinforced the principle that costs generally follow the event, unless there are exceptional circumstances that warrant a departure from this rule.