Herbert v New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation (No 2)

The case of Herbert v New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation (No 2) involved the plaintiff, Mr Herbert, who had brought a claim against the New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation. The dispute centred around the general rule that costs follow the event in legal proceedings and whether there were any circumstances that would justify departing from this principle. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues before the court were whether the general rule of costs following the event should be applied in this case and if there were any reasons to deviate from this principle. Specifically, the court had to consider if the fact that the appeal was unsuccessful should be a factor in deferring the making of a costs order, and whether any disentitling conduct by the plaintiff had occurred.

The court held that the general rule of costs following the event applies and there were no grounds to depart from it. The fact that the appeal was unsuccessful did not provide a reason to defer making a costs order. Additionally, the court found that no disentitling conduct by the plaintiff had been made out. Therefore, the defendant's application for costs was successful.

The court ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the proceeding in the Supreme Court and of the appeal to the Court of Appeal. The plaintiff was also ordered to pay the defendant's costs of an application for security for costs. The defendant was ordered to pay its own costs of a further application for security for costs.