In the matter of Tresdar Pty Ltd (No 3)

The matter involved Tresdar Pty Ltd, which sought indemnity costs against an unnamed defendant in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary dispute centred around the defendant's failure to comply with court orders and the plaintiff's subsequent application for indemnity costs to cover the expenses incurred due to this non-compliance. The plaintiff argued that the defendant should be required to pay these costs in a gross sum to avoid the plaintiff having to undergo the burden of a detailed assessment process. This was particularly pertinent given the defendant's apparent reluctance to engage further in the assessment process.

The legal issues before the court included whether it was appropriate to fix the indemnity costs in a gross sum and whether the plaintiff should be spared the burden of assessment. Additionally, the court had to consider the defendant's likelihood of participating further in the assessment process and the sufficiency of the evidence provided regarding the costs incurred. The court was tasked with determining whether it could make an informed decision about the quantum of the order based on the unparticularised total evidence presented by the plaintiff.

The court found that fixing the indemnity costs in a gross sum was appropriate under the circumstances, as the defendant was unlikely to participate further in the assessment process. The plaintiff's evidence, although not detailed, provided a general understanding of the costs incurred. Given the defendant's lack of engagement and the unparticularised nature of the evidence, the court concluded that it was not in a position to make a precise assessment of the quantum of the order. Therefore, it was deemed fair and reasonable to fix the indemnity costs in a gross sum, thereby avoiding the plaintiff the burden of detailed assessment. The court ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs in a gross sum as specified in the application.