Karam Group Pty Ltd as Trustee for Karam (No. 1) Family Trust v HCA Queensland Pty Ltd & Ors (No 2)

The case involved Karam Group Pty Ltd as Trustee for Karam (No. 1) Family Trust against HCA Queensland Pty Ltd and others. The dispute arose from civil proceedings in the Queensland Supreme Court, focusing on the allocation of costs. The central issue was whether the first respondent should bear the entirety of the applicant’s costs on a standard basis, or if the costs should be shared between the first and second respondents. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the second respondent should be exempt from paying any costs due to minimal involvement in the hearing.

The court examined the principle that costs typically follow the event, meaning the unsuccessful party generally pays the successful party’s costs. The applicant argued for full costs to be borne by the first respondent, whereas the first respondent contended for a reduction, asserting that the basis for the court’s decision on the first issue was not presented by the applicant. The first respondent also argued it should not bear the costs of defending a case on validity that was not accepted by the court. Furthermore, the second respondent submitted that there should be no costs order between itself and the applicant, citing minimal involvement in the hearing.

In its reasoning, the court determined that the applicant was successful on both issues. It rejected the first respondent’s argument for a reduction of costs on the first issue, as the basis for the court’s decision was relevant and valid. The court found that the first respondent should bear the majority of the costs, with the second respondent contributing a smaller share due to its minimal involvement. Consequently, the court ordered the first respondent to pay 95 per cent of the applicant’s costs, and the second respondent to pay 5 per cent. This decision adhered to the principle of costs following the event while considering the specific circumstances of the case.

The final orders specified that the first respondent would pay 95 per cent of the applicant’s costs, while the second respondent would pay 5 per cent. These costs were to be assessed on the standard basis, unless otherwise agreed. This allocation reflects the court’s balanced approach to cost distribution, taking into account the respective involvements and arguments of the parties.