Kuksal v Victorian Legal Services Board (No 2)

In the case of Kuksal v Victorian Legal Services Board (No 2), the applicant, Kuksal, sought indemnity costs and to fix a gross sum for the costs incurred during the appeal. The appeal was against the Victorian Legal Services Board, and the matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute centred around the issue of whether the appeal should have been brought and the appropriateness of ordering costs for work that had not yet been billed.

The legal issues that the court had to decide included whether the Court had the authority to impose limits on the length of affidavits, and whether the Court could order costs for unspecified work not yet billed. The applicant argued that the appeal should not have been brought and that the costs should be paid by the Board. The Board, on the other hand, contended that the appeal was necessary and that the applicant's costs should not be paid.

The Court held that the appeal should not have been brought and that the applicant was entitled to indemnity costs. However, the Court noted that the applicant had not provided a detailed bill for the work done, and that the costs for unspecified work should not be paid. The Court also held that it had the power to impose limits on the length of affidavits where the material filed by the plaintiffs was oppressive, pursuant to sections 7 and 47 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic).

The Court ordered that the Board pay the applicant's costs of the appeal, up to a maximum of $50,000, and that the costs for unspecified work not yet billed should not be paid. The Court also noted that it had the power to impose limits on the length of affidavits where the material filed by the plaintiffs was oppressive.