Karam Group Pty Ltd ATF The Karam (No. 1) Family Trust v HCA Queensland Pty Ltd (No 2)

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, Karam Group Pty Ltd ATF The Karam (No. 1) Family Trust initiated proceedings against HCA Queensland Pty Ltd (No. 2), seeking to restrain HCA from pursuing part of a payment claim on grounds of issue estoppel and abuse of process. The applicant also sought to restrain the second respondent from issuing an adjudication decision on the basis of apprehended bias. After the hearing of the application, HCA paid the adjudicator's fee, and the adjudication decision was issued. The Court found for the applicant on the issue estoppel and abuse of process but ruled against the applicant on the apprehended bias by the second respondent. Subsequently, HCA consented to an injunction restraining it from pursuing the part of its payment claim.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the parties' costs of the proceeding should be the subject of orders based on each party's success on the issues raised by the applicant, whether there should be a departure from the usual order as to costs of the proceeding, whether HCA should pay the applicant's costs of the proceeding, and whether the applicant's costs should be assessed on an indemnity basis from after the date the Court published its findings. The court considered the written submissions of the parties on these issues. The Court found that the applicant had been successful on the issues of issue estoppel and abuse of process, and that the second respondent's limited success on the apprehended bias issue did not warrant a different approach to costs.

The Court concluded that an "issues-based" costs order was appropriate because the applicant had been successful on the significant issues that determined the outcome of the proceeding. The Court found that the applicant's failure to persuade the Court on the apprehended bias issue had no effect on the substantive outcome of the proceeding. The Court also considered that the applicant's costs should be assessed on an indemnity basis from after the date the Court published its findings. The Court made the order that the first respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs of the proceeding.