Keys Consulting Pty Ltd v CAT Enterprises Pty Ltd

Keys Consulting Pty Ltd, the appellant, brought an action against CAT Enterprises Pty Ltd, the respondent, in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute centred on alleged breaches of contract and misleading and deceptive conduct related to the sale of a business. After a trial, the court found in favour of Keys Consulting on some claims but dismissed others. Dissatisfied with the outcome, Keys Consulting appealed the decision. The appeal raised questions about the apportionment of costs between the parties, specifically whether the respondent should bear a portion of the appellant’s costs for the appeal and the trial. The court considered the principle that costs should follow the event, and whether the appeal was partly successful justified an award of costs to the appellant. It also evaluated the extent of success and whether the appeal merited a costs order in its favour.

The court determined that Keys Consulting was partly successful on the appeal, justifying a costs order in its favour. It recognised that the appeal was not entirely without merit, even though the appellant did not secure all the relief it sought. The court found that CAT Enterprises should pay 75 per cent of Keys Consulting’s costs of the appeal. The court balanced the principle that costs should follow the event with the appellant’s degree of success. It concluded that a significant proportion of the costs should be borne by the respondent due to the appellant's partial success.

The court further considered the costs of the trial and held that CAT Enterprises should pay 75 per cent of Keys Consulting’s costs of the trial. It reasoned that the appellant’s partial success on the appeal mirrored its success at the trial level, warranting a similar apportionment of costs. The court emphasised that the degree of success achieved by the appellant warranted the imposition of costs against the respondent to a substantial extent.

The court ordered CAT Enterprises to pay 75 per cent of Keys Consulting’s costs of the appeal and the trial. This decision reflected the court's assessment of the appellant's partial success and the principles governing the apportionment of costs in cases of partial success.