Hobbs v Oildrive (No 2)

In the case of Hobbs v Oildrive (No 2), the defendant Oildrive sought to recover its costs in defending the proceedings against Hobbs, including fees for both junior and senior counsel. The matter was before the court to determine whether the defendant should be allowed to recover the full costs of both levels of counsel, and if so, whether the court should certify that Oildrive recover its costs with an allowance for both senior and junior counsel. Additionally, the court was asked to consider whether it should make an order giving the parties liberty to re-list the matter for fixing of costs under Rule 687 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules.

The legal issues centred around the appropriateness of allowing a party to recover costs for both junior and senior counsel when the court had not previously made a specific order certifying such costs. The court had to weigh the need for fair and reasonable costs recovery against the potential for unnecessary duplication in legal representation. It also had to consider whether the absence of a specific certification order precluded the defendant from recovering costs for both levels of counsel.

The court found that the fees of two counsel should be regarded as necessary and proper costs, except in cases where they were unreasonable. The court reasoned that while there was no explicit certification for the recovery of both junior and senior counsel's fees, the absence of such certification did not necessarily bar the defendant from recovering these costs. The court also determined that it would be appropriate to grant the parties liberty to re-list the matter for the fixing of costs to ensure a fair and comprehensive assessment of all necessary and proper costs incurred during the proceedings.

The final orders included that the plaintiffs pay the defendant's costs incidental to the proceeding, to be agreed or assessed on the standard basis, and that the assessment of the defendant's costs be made on the basis that the fees of two counsel should be regarded as necessary and proper costs, except where they were unreasonable. Additionally, the court made an order giving the parties liberty to re-list the matter for the fixing of costs.