Hookey v Manthey (No 2)

In the case of Hookey v Manthey (No 2), the dispute between the parties involved an application for a freezing order and other injunctive relief, which was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicants sought to restrain the respondents from dealing with, modifying or altering a specific engine, with some additional incidental orders. The court had previously adjourned the application with costs reserved. Both parties now contested the allocation of costs, with the applicants arguing that the costs of the application for a freezing order and other injunctive relief should be borne by each party, while the respondents sought to recover the costs of the application. The central legal issue before the court was whether the costs should follow the event, in line with the general principle that costs follow the event.

The court considered the principle that costs generally follow the event, meaning that the unsuccessful party usually bears the costs of the proceedings. However, the court also acknowledged the importance of exercising discretion in exceptional circumstances. In this case, the application had been adjourned with costs reserved, and the judgment did not continue the freezing orders made on an ex parte basis. The court found that the applicants were unsuccessful in their main application, which led to the freezing orders not being continued. However, the court recognised that the application had resulted in some incidental orders that were beneficial to the applicants. Therefore, the court exercised its discretion to order that the applicants should pay 80 percent of the respondents' costs of the application, with the remaining 20 percent of the applicants' costs being their costs in the proceedings.

The court ordered that each party bear their own costs of their appearance on 9 August 2018. Furthermore, the applicants were to pay 80 percent of the respondents' costs of the application, to be assessed on the standard basis, with the remaining 20 percent of the applicants' costs being their costs in the proceedings. This outcome reflects the court's consideration of both the general principle of costs following the event and the need to exercise discretion in light of the specific circumstances of the case.