Hudson v Lee

The High Court of Australia heard an argument concerning the appropriate costs order in a matter involving the Australian Electoral Commission, the Commonwealth, and Mr. R.J.N. Hudson, who appeared in person. The central dispute revolved around the nature of costs previously ordered by the court and the interpretation of the relevant legislative provisions governing such orders.

The legal issues before the court were whether the prior costs order was intended to be for "indemnity costs" or "party-and-party costs," and what principles underpinned the distinction between these two types of costs. Specifically, the court considered the practical differences in recovery between party-and-party costs, which typically do not cover all expenses incurred, and indemnity costs, which aim for a more complete reimbursement. The court also examined the statutory framework, particularly section 360(4) of the relevant Act, and its impact on the court's power to award different categories of costs.

Mr. McCarthy, appearing for the first respondent, argued that the costs order was not intended to be limited by the principles governing ordinary costs inter partes. He submitted that a different principle applied to costs awarded under section 360(4), which might allow for a broader recovery than standard party-and-party costs. He referred to the decision in *Milosevic v GIO of NSW* to illustrate the distinction between party-and-party costs and indemnity costs, noting that party-and-party costs typically result in a recovery of approximately two-thirds of actual expenses. The court noted a potential omission in the draft notice of motion, suggesting the word "unreasonably" was missing from a phrase concerning incurred costs or amounts.