Keeley & Ors v Horton & Anor (No 2)

The case of Keeley & Ors v Horton & Anor (No 2) involved the applicants, Keeley and others, seeking nominal damages against the respondents, Horton and another, following a breach of contract. The dispute came before the Federal Court of Australia. The applicants argued for nominal damages in recognition of the breach and sought an order for costs, which would typically follow a successful claim for damages.

The central legal issue before the court was the appropriate effect of awarding nominal damages on the subsequent costs order. The applicants contended that the award of nominal damages should not automatically disqualify them from an order for costs, given the significance of the breach despite the minimal monetary value of the damages. The respondents argued that nominal damages, being of such a small amount, should preclude the applicants from a costs order.

The court held that the amount of damages awarded did not necessarily dictate the outcome of a costs order. The significance of the breach, regardless of the nominal damages, justified the applicants' entitlement to costs. The court recognised that the breach had substantial implications, warranting the protection of the applicants' legal rights and the deterrence of similar breaches in the future. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the applicants, granting them nominal damages and an order for costs, reflecting the importance of the breach despite the minimal financial impact.