Hosanna Excelsis One Universal Church Incorporated v Pastina Pty Ltd (No 2)

The case of *Hosanna Excelsis One Universal Church Incorporated v Pastina Pty Ltd (No 2)* was heard by Kelly, Peek, and Blu JJ. The dispute concerned the costs of proceedings in the Magistrates Court and District Court, as well as the appeal itself, and involved applications for freezing and restraining orders. The court was required to determine the allocation of costs between the parties, the basis on which those costs should be assessed (standard or indemnity), and whether freezing and restraining orders should continue.

The court's reasoning focused on the overall outcome of the litigation and the conduct of the parties in relation to various interlocutory applications. The primary legal principle applied was that the party seeking a freezing order bears the onus of proving a likelihood of success in recovering costs. In this instance, Pastina Pty Ltd failed to discharge this onus, as the court found that the judgment in favour of Hosanna Excelsis One Universal Church Incorporated, combined with the allocation of appeal costs, meant there was no realistic prospect of Pastina recovering a net amount.

Consequently, the court ordered that Pastina Pty Ltd pay 75 per cent of Hosanna's costs of the appeal on a standard basis. Pastina was also ordered to pay Hosanna's costs of the proceedings in the Magistrates Court and District Court, with specific exceptions for costs relating to an estoppel issue. Hosanna was ordered to pay Pastina's costs on an indemnity basis for a defined period concerning the estoppel issue, and for specific applications related to disclosure and amendments. The freezing and restraining orders were discharged.