Khanna v Bunnings Group Limited (No 2)

The appeal in Khanna v Bunnings Group Limited (No 2) involved the plaintiff seeking a gross sum costs order, as the usual costs assessment was deemed to involve further expense and delay. The plaintiff argued that a gross sum costs order would be fair and just given the defendant's inability to discharge any costs liability. The Court of Appeal examined whether there was sufficient evidence for the Court to undertake a fair and just quantification of the costs. The plaintiff submitted that the evidence provided was sufficient, while the defendant contended that the evidence was inadequate for such a quantification.

The central legal issue was whether the evidence provided was sufficient to enable the Court to fairly and justly quantify the costs in a gross sum costs order. The Court needed to determine whether the plaintiff's submissions were adequate to support the order and whether the defendant's inability to pay would result in a significant disadvantage to the plaintiff if the usual costs assessment process was followed. The Court also had to consider the balance of convenience and the principles guiding the grant of gross sum costs orders.

The Court of Appeal held that the evidence provided was not sufficient for the Court to undertake a fair and just quantification of the costs. The Court found that the plaintiff had not discharged the onus to provide sufficient evidence to support the gross sum costs order. The Court also considered the balance of convenience and determined that the plaintiff would not be significantly disadvantaged if the usual costs assessment process was followed. The Court held that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that the defendant's inability to pay would result in a significant disadvantage to the plaintiff, as the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to support the gross sum costs order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and held that the plaintiff was not entitled to a gross sum costs order. The Court further held that the plaintiff should bear their own costs of the appeal. The Court emphasised the importance of providing sufficient evidence to support such an order and highlighted the principles guiding the grant of gross sum costs orders.