Harrington v Greenwood Grove Estate Pty Ltd (No 2)

Harrington brought proceedings against Greenwood Grove Estate, contesting a subdivision proposal. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the general principle that costs follow the event should be set aside in this case. The court was asked to decide if the defendants' success in the proceedings, which was solely due to late amendments, justified disregarding the usual cost allocation. The plaintiff would have otherwise succeeded, and substantial costs were incurred before the hearing.

The court examined the legal principles surrounding costs in litigation and whether exceptional circumstances warranted a departure from the established rule. The court considered the impact of the defendants' amendments on the proceedings and the plaintiff's potential success had the amendments not been made. Given the late timing of the amendments and the plaintiff's position, the court found that the defendants' success was not a sufficient reason to alter the usual cost allocation.

After careful deliberation, the court determined that the defendants' success in the proceedings was not enough to justify a departure from the established rule that costs follow the event. The court found that the defendants' late amendments did not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting a change in the usual cost allocation. The court did not make any order regarding costs, leaving the matter to be resolved between the parties in accordance with the general rule.

No further orders were made by the court, leaving the parties to address the issue of costs in accordance with the general principle that costs follow the event. The court's decision emphasised the importance of timely amendments and the potential consequences of late changes to pleadings in litigation.