Jacques v Kent and Orlizki t/as Kent Attorneys (No 2)

The appellant, Jacques, sought to appeal a decision of the Local Court regarding an application for costs. Jacques had brought a proceeding against the respondents, Kent and Orlizki trading as Kent Attorneys. The Local Court dismissed Jacques's proceeding but awarded him costs on an indemnity basis. Jacques sought to appeal the decision, contending that the Local Court erred in ordering that costs should follow the event. The respondents argued that Jacques was not entitled to succeed on his appeal. The appeal raised two issues: whether the Local Court had erred in finding that the proceeding was vexatious, and whether the Local Court had erred in ordering that costs should follow the event. Both parties were partially successful in their appeals.
The Court held that the proceeding was not vexatious as the Local Court had failed to identify sufficient grounds to make such a finding. The Court also held that the Local Court erred in ordering that costs should follow the event. The Local Court had failed to consider the relevant case law. The Court ordered that Jacques was entitled to costs on an indemnity basis for both the proceeding in the Local Court and the appeal.

The appeal was allowed in part. The Court ordered that the orders of the Local Court dismissing the proceeding and awarding costs on an indemnity basis were set aside. The Court ordered that Jacques was entitled to costs on an indemnity basis for the proceeding in the Local Court and for the appeal.