Life Combat Sports Pty Ltd v The World Institute of Martial Arts Pty Ltd - [2025] WASC 21 (S)

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   LIFE COMBAT SPORTS PTY LTD -v- THE WORLD INSTITUTE OF MARTIAL ARTS PTY LTD [2025] WASC 21 (S)
CORAM:   STRK J
HEARD:   30 JANUARY 2025 & 5 FEBRUARY 2025
DELIVERED          :   5 FEBRUARY 2025
PUBLISHED           :   6 FEBRUARY 2025
FILE NO/S:   CIV 2019 of 2024
BETWEEN:   LIFE COMBAT SPORTS PTY LTD
Plaintiff
AND
THE WORLD INSTITUTE OF MARTIAL ARTS PTY LTD
First Defendant
GRAHAM PAUL MCDONNELL
Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Equity - Injunction - Form of interlocutory injunctive relief - Discharge from undertaking as to damages - Turns on own facts

Costs - Injunction application - Security for costs application - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 66
Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA)
Supreme Court of Western Australia Consolidated Practice Directions, PD 4.7.1, 4.7.1.1

Result:

Interlocutory injunction granted
Security for costs ordered

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	PG McGowan
First Defendant	:	CA Gregson
Second Defendant	:	CA Gregson

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Metaxas Legal
First Defendant	:	Gregson & Associates
Second Defendant	:	Gregson & Associates

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Amaca Pty Ltd (formerly James Hardie & Co Pty Ltd) v Hannell [2007] WASCA 158 (S)
Brazendale v Kenna [1961] Tas SR 199
Hughes v Western Australian Cricket Association (1986) ATPR 40-748
James v Surf Road Nominees Pty Limited (No 2) [2005] NSWCA 296
Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534
Life Combat Sports Pty Ltd v The World Institute of Martial Arts Pty Ltd [2025] WASC 21
Naidoo v Williamson [2008] WASCA 179; (2008) 37 WAR 516
Northern Territory v Sangare [2019] HCA 25; (2019) 265 CLR 164
Ohn v Walton (1995) 36 NSWLR 77
Strzelecki Holdings Pty Ltd v Jorgensen [2019] WASCA 96; (2019) 54 WAR 388
Wentworth v Attorney-General (NSW) [1984] HCA 70; (1984) 154 CLR 518

STRK J:

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 5 February 2025 and has been edited from the transcript.)

Introduction

An interlocutory injunction application and an amended security for costs application were both heard on 23 January 2025, and on 30 January 2025 reasons for decision was delivered with respect to the same: Life Combat Sports Pty Ltd v The World Institute of Martial Arts Pty Ltd [2025] WASC 21 (primary reasons). As was recorded in the primary reasons, I intended to hear the parties as to the form of orders and as to costs.
On 30 January 2025 counsel were heard in relation to the form of the security for costs orders, which orders were made at the conclusion of that hearing. A copy of the orders made on 30 January 2025 as to security for costs is reproduced at sch A to these reasons.
On 30 January 2025 counsel for Life Combat Sports moved for Ms Britten to be released from the undertaking as to damages proffered in support of the interlocutory injunction application. Counsel for the parties were also on that occasion heard in relation to the form of the interlocutory injunction orders and with respect to costs of both applications. At the conclusion of the hearing on 30 January 2025, these matters were adjourned to 5 February 2025 so as to allow for instructions to be taken and for conferral to take place. The proceeding was also provisionally listed for an expedited four day trial commencing on 23 June 2025.
As was contemplated by order 6 of the orders made on 30 January 2025, the parties filed competing minutes of proposed orders in respect of the form of orders as to the interlocutory injunction; and the costs of both the interlocutory injunction application and the security for costs application (there having been no agreement reached as between the parties as to these matters). On 5 February 2025 I again heard counsel in relation to the form of interlocutory injunction orders, the oral application that Ms Britten be released from the undertaking as to damages proffered in support of the interlocutory injunction application, and the costs of the two applications. I deal with each of these matters in turn. These reasons are to be read with the primary reasons and capitalised words below have the same meaning as given in the primary reasons.

Form of interlocutory injunction orders

As to the form of interlocutory injunction, if the court was not prepared to make an order in the form reproduced at [10(3)] of the primary reasons without modification, Life Combat Sports promoted the following form of order:[1]
[1] Plaintiff's minute of proposed orders filed on 4 February 2025 (proposed orders 1 ‑ 2).
1Until further order the first defendant:
(a)keep a written record of the names, addresses and membership fees paid by each person who attends the first defendant's gymnasium from the date of this order;
(b)pay the membership fees derived from former members of the plaintiff into a separate bank account and hold the same on trust for the plaintiff pending the resolution or determination of this action; and
(c)create a written record of the names, addresses and membership fees paid by each person who attended the first defendant's gymnasium between 17 April 2024 and the date of this order.
2Nothing in order 1(b) above prevents the first defendant from paying its usual business expenses in the sum of $____.
Life Combat Sports however maintained that based on the evidence before the court, it was not in a position to suggest an amount for the purposes of proposed order 2.[2]
[2] ts 103 - 105 (5 February 2025).
The form of order promoted on behalf of the defendants was as follows:[3]
4The first defendant shall pay the sum of $1,350.00 per fortnight into the law practice trust account of the first defendant's solicitors until further order.
5The first defendant's solicitors shall furnish a trust account receipt of the monies receipted by them to the solicitors for the plaintiffs within seven days from receipt.
6The parties have liberty to apply in respect of orders 4 and 5 of these orders.
[3] Defendants' minute of proposed orders filed on 4 February 2025 (proposed orders 4 ‑ 6).
As was recorded at [156] of the primary reasons, on the evidence and having regard to the strength of Life Combat Sports' prima facie case, I was satisfied that the balance of convenience strongly favoured the grant of the relief in the form of paragraphs (a) and (c) of the second alternative order sought by Life Combat Sports; and counsel for The World Institute of Martial Arts and Mr McDonnell had noted that no submission could be made against orders in terms of paragraphs (a) and (c) of the second proposed alternative order.
As to paragraph (b) of the second alternative order, if the court was not prepared to make an order in the form reproduced at [10(3)] of the primary reasons without modification, after hearing counsel for the defendants, the court was informed that Life Combat Sports was prepared to accept an order in the form promoted on behalf of the defendants, with a minor modification, which modification was not opposed by the defendants.[4]
[4] ts 112, 127 (5 February 2025).
For the reasons set out in the primary reasons, I am not prepared to make an order in the form reproduced at [10(3)] of the primary reasons without modification. In light of the position now adopted by Life Combat Sports, I will make an order in the form promoted on behalf of the defendants, with the agreed minor modification.

Release from the undertaking as to damages

At the hearing on 30 January 2025, counsel for Life Combat Sports sought that Ms Britten be released from the undertaking as to damages that she had proffered in support of the interlocutory injunction application.[5] While counsel for Life Combat Sports acknowledged that the undertaking as to damages and the security for costs awarded in favour of the defendants were not co‑extensive,[6] counsel submitted that the undertaking would place Ms Britten under an additional burden to the security for costs that she was to be ordered to provide.[7]
[5] Undertaking as to damages filed on 8 October 2024; referred to in the primary reasons at [11].
[6] ts 77 (30 January 2025).
[7] ts 76 - 77 (30 January 2025).
The undertaking provided by Ms Britten had been weighed in the balance in the disposition of the interlocutory injunction application.[8] Further, it was a matter to which the court had had regard when it considered the net asset position of Ms Britten in the disposition of the security for costs application.[9]
[8] Primary reasons [150], [161].
[9] Primary reasons [234], [235].
As the form of interlocutory injunction to be granted was a modified form of the least invasive form promoted, Ms Britten's exposure to damages by the undertaking appears relatively confined. That said, the undertaking and the security for costs order are not co‑extensive.
Having obtained instructions, through the defendants' minute of proposed orders filed on 4 February 2025, the court was informed that it was agreed that the undertaking as to damages could be discharged.[10] In light of the defendants' agreement to the same, I will make an order discharging the undertaking.
[10] Defendants' minute of proposed orders filed on 4 February 2025 (proposed order 2).

Costs

As to the costs of the applications, in summary, it was the position of Life Combat Sports on 30 January 2025 and on 5 February 2025 that the costs of both the interlocutory injunction and the security for costs application ought be reserved to the trial judge.[11]
[11] ts 81 (30 January 2025); ts 115 (5 February 2025); plaintiff's minute of proposed orders filed on 4 February 2025 (proposed orders 4 and 5).
In support of that submission, counsel for Life Combat Sports noted that the interlocutory injunction application was made and heard in circumstances where various issues were canvassed that the court was properly not called upon to yet decide, but which may in the end, on reflection, bear upon both the appropriateness of the outcome of the application, the resistance to the application, and the relief that was granted.[12]
[12] ts 81 (30 January 2025).
As to the security for costs application, counsel for Life Combat Sports submitted that it would be appropriate that the costs of that application also be reserved, as one is the obverse of the other.[13]
[13] ts 81 (30 January 2025).
On 30 January 2025 counsel for the defendants moved for an order that pursuant to O 66 r 1 (3) of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), the costs of the interlocutory injunction application ought be apportioned between the plaintiff and the defendants as follows:[14]
(a)the defendants pay Life Combat Sports 20% of Life Combat Sports' party‑party costs after taxation unless otherwise agreed; and
(b)Life Combat Sports pay the defendants 80% of the defendants' party‑party costs after taxation unless otherwise agreed.
[14] ts 86 - 89 (30 January 2025); defendants' minute of proposed orders filed on 30 January 2025 (proposed order 1).
In the alternative to such an order, the defendants had suggested that the costs of the interlocutory injunction application ought be in the cause.[15]
[15] Defendants' minute of proposed orders filed on 30 January 2025 (alternative proposed order 1).
At the hearing on 5 February 2025 it was the defendants' position that pursuant to O 66 r 1 (3) of the Rules of the Supreme Court, the costs of the interlocutory injunction application and the hearing on 30 January 2025 ought be fixed in the amount of $2,816, and apportioned as between Life Combat Sports and the defendants as follows:[16]
(a)the defendants pay Life Combat Sports $563.20 (that is, 20% of the total amount fixed); and
(b)Life Combat Sports pay the defendants $2,252.80 (that is, 80% of the total amount fixed),
which costs are to be payable forthwith and in any event.
[16] ts 118 (5 February 2025); defendants' minute of proposed orders filed on 30 January 2025 (proposed order 1).
As to the security for costs application, the defendants' position on 30 January 2025 had been that they ought be paid by Life Combat Sports on a party‑party basis taxed unless otherwise agreed.[17] At the hearing on 5 February 2025, counsel for the defendants moved for an order that pursuant to O 66 r 1(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court, the costs of the security for costs application and the hearing on 30 January 2025 be paid by Life Combat Sports fixed in the amount of $2,816, to be paid forthwith and in any event.[18]
[17] ts 86 (30 January 2025); defendants' minute of proposed orders filed on 30 January 2025 par 2.
[18] Defendants' minute of proposed orders filed on 4 February 2025 (proposed order 3).
As to the principles to be applied in determining where costs should fall, I note as follows.
Where costs should fall is at the discretion of the court.[19] The discretion to order costs under s 37 of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA) and O 66 r 1 of the Rules of the Supreme Court is very wide.[20] The only restrictions are those provided elsewhere in the Supreme Court Act and the Rules of the Supreme Court, or in any other Act; and the fact that the discretion must be exercised judicially, in accordance with established principles and factors directly connected with the litigation.[21] The discretion must be exercised so as to achieve what is fair and just between the parties according to the circumstances of the particular case.[22]
[19] Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA) s 37.
[20] LexisNexis, Civil Procedure Western Australia, vol 1 (198-04-23) at [66.1.2], citing Wentworth v Attorney-General (NSW) [1984] HCA 70; (1984) 154 CLR 518, 528; Naidoo v Williamson [2008] WASCA 179; (2008) 37 WAR 516 [39].
[21] LexisNexis, Civil Procedure Western Australia, vol 1 (198-04-23) at [66.1.2], citing Naidoo v Williamson [39], [42]; Strzelecki Holdings Pty Ltd v Jorgensen [2019] WASCA 96; (2019) 54 WAR 388 [48] ‑ [50].
[22] LexisNexis, Civil Procedure Western Australia, vol 1 (198-04-23) at [66.1.2], citing Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534, 558.
It is well established that an order for the payment of costs by one party is compensatory in nature; it is not for the purpose of punishment. Costs generally follow the event because such an order is intended, at least to the extent that the costs incurred were not unreasonable or unreasonably incurred, as compensation (and vindication) for the successful action or application.[23]
[23] LexisNexis, Civil Procedure Western Australia, vol 1 (198-04-23) at [66.1.2], citing Latoudis v Casey; Northern Territory v Sangare [2019] HCA 25; (2019) 265 CLR 164 [30] ‑ [31]; Ohn v Walton (1995) 36 NSWLR 77.
While a successful party will ordinarily receive his or her costs, where the successful party has succeeded only upon a portion of his or her claim, it may be reasonable in the circumstances to order that the successful party bear the expense of litigating that portion upon which he or she had failed.[24] Where a party though generally successful has, by the introduction of some issue or issues on which that party has failed, increased the costs the court may order such party to pay the costs of such issue or issues.[25]
[24] James v Surf Road Nominees Pty Limited (No 2) [2005] NSWCA 296 [33], citing Hughes v Western Australian Cricket Association (1986) ATPR 40-748.
[25] Rules of the Supreme Court O 66 r 1(3).
As to timing, costs may be dealt with by the court at any stage of a proceeding or after the conclusion of the proceeding, and any order of the court for the payment of costs may require the costs to be paid forthwith notwithstanding that the proceeding has not concluded.[26] Where the order says 'plaintiff's (or defendant's) costs in any event', unless the action is settled without costs, those costs are only payable after taxation at the conclusion of the proceeding.[27]
[26] Rules of the Supreme Court O 66 r 10(1).
[27] Rules of the Supreme Court O 66 r 10(1); Supreme Court of Western Australia Consolidated Practice Directions PD 4.7.1 par 1.
The costs of interlocutory applications is also addressed in the Supreme Court of Western Australia Consolidated Practice Directions. Practice Direction 4.7.1 paragraph 3 provides that as a general rule, where an order for costs is to be made against a party in an interlocutory proceeding, the costs will be fixed and ordered to be paid forthwith or by a particular date. Likewise, as a general rule, where costs are ordered to be in the cause, the quantum will be fixed.
The justification for the general rule is set out at PD 4.7.1 paragraphs 4 to 7, as follows:
4.… First, as an action progresses, parties have an interest in knowing the quantum of costs awarded to or against them, or the liability for which awaits the cause.
5.Secondly, the historical practice of ordering costs to be paid 'in any event' does not sufficiently serve the purpose of discouraging ill-considered or needless interlocutory applications. The overwhelming majority of actions settle and the orders are not enforced. The apparent benefit to parties in whose favour such orders are made is illusory.
6.Thirdly, where actions do proceed to judgment and an order for costs, the subsequent taxation would be simplified if the costs of interlocutory procedures had already been dealt with.
7.Accordingly, the Court will generally order that interlocutory costs ordered to be paid by a party are to be paid forthwith or by a particular date, rather than in any event.
As is also recorded at PD 4.7.1 and was noted in the primary reasons, judicial officers can be expected, in the usual run of routine matters, to fix the costs payable by reference to the schedule attached to that practice direction (schedule 4.7.1.1), rather than ordering them to be taxed, which schedule has been prepared by reference to the applicable determination of the Legal Costs Committee.[28]
[28] Primary reasons [192] - [193], referring to Supreme Court of Western Australia Consolidated Practice Directions PD 4.7.1 pars 8 and 9.
I also note PD 4.7.1 records that the amounts suggested in schedule 4.7.1.1 have been calculated by reference to the time required in a typical, or median, instance, and the court will fix costs in a lower sum in a simple matter, or adjust the amount upward (or order costs to be taxed) for unusually heavy matters.[29]
[29] Primary reasons [194], referring to Supreme Court of Western Australia Consolidated Practice Directions PD 4.7.1 par 10.
I adopt and apply these principles in determining the question of costs.
I accept that the costs outcome promoted on behalf of Life Combat Sports and on behalf the defendants for each application were outcomes within the bounds of the court's discretion.
In the exercise of its discretion, the court certainly may (as was suggested on behalf of Life Combat Sports) order that the determination of the appropriate costs outcome for an interlocutory application be reserved to the trial judge. As was observed on behalf of Life Combat Sports, the interlocutory injunction application was indeed made and heard in circumstances where various issues were canvassed that the court was properly not called upon to yet decide, but which may in the end, on reflection, bear upon the appropriateness of the outcome of the application, the resistance to the application, and the relief that was granted. That said, I did not consider there to be a good reason to so order in the circumstances of this case. The circumstances and manner of disposition of both the interlocutory injunction and security for costs applications were not so unique that costs ought not follow the event after their determination (and before the determination of the substantive proceeding). Nor was there any reason why the parties ought not have the benefit of certainty as to quantum and prompt recovery. As is noted above, as a general rule, where an order for costs is to be made against a party in an interlocutory proceeding, the costs will be fixed and ordered to be paid forthwith or by a particular date. Consistency in the exercise of judicial discretion is important in the administration of justice, and the circumstances in which costs fall to be determined in this case do not warrant the reservation of costs.

Further, in the exercise of its discretion, it would also be within the court's power (as was promoted on behalf of the defendants at the commencement of the hearing on 30 January 2025) to order that the costs awarded be taxed if not agreed. However, the applications before the court were in the usual run of routine matters. The procedural history and nature of the applications were not so complex that compensation in an amount that was fair and just would be prejudiced by the fixing of costs by reference to schedule 4.7.1.1 (with appropriate adjustments). While Life Combat Sports maintained that the appropriate outcome would be for the court to reserve the costs of the applications to the trial judge, if the court was to deal with costs now, neither counsel opposed the fixing of costs by reference to schedule 4.7.1.1.[30]
[30] ts 97 - 98 (30 January 2025).
As is also noted above, in the exercise of its discretion, the court may (as was promoted on behalf of the defendants) determine it reasonable in the circumstances to order that the successful party bear the expense of litigating that portion upon which he or she had failed.[31] However, it is well‑recognised that an order that a successful party recover only a portion of its costs, where it has not been wholly successful, should not be made as a matter of course.[32] The power to apportion costs on an issue by issue basis should only be exercised where there are discrete and severable issues on which the generally successful party failed, and which added to the cost of the proceeding in a significant and readily discernible way.[33]
[31] Rules of the Supreme Court O 66 r 1(3).
[32] Strzelecki Holdings v Jorgensen [51].
[33] LexisNexis, Civil Procedure Western Australia, vol 1 (198-04-23) at [66.1.10], citing Strzelecki Holdings v Jorgensen [51]; Amaca Pty Ltd (formerly James Hardie & Co Pty Ltd) v Hannell [2007] WASCA 158 (S) [7]; Brazendale v Kenna [1961] Tas SR 199, 208.
In this case, Life Combat Sports sought interlocutory injunctive relief. While various pleaded claims were relied upon, it was the claim against Mr McDonnell for breach of Statutory Duties, particularly under s 183(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), that I considered gave rise to a serious question to be tried.[34] Further, while Life Combat Sports advanced three alternative forms of interlocutory injunction, the balance of convenience only favoured the grant of the least invasive form of order (that is, the second alternative form of order) with modification to achieve the balance described at [162] of the primary reasons.
[34] Primary reasons [141] ‑ [142].
While opposition to the application required the defendants to consider the whole of Life Combat Sport's pleaded claim, and all of the forms of order promoted on behalf of Life Combat Sports, I did not consider that the circumstances gave rise to discrete and severable issues which added to the cost of the application in a significant and readily discernible way. The interlocutory injunction application did not warrant the 80:20 apportionment of costs in the manner promoted by the defendants.
Exercising the discretion so as to achieve what is fair and just between the parties according to the circumstances of this particular case, I consider that the appropriate costs disposition is for Life Combat Sports to be awarded its costs of the interlocutory injunction application, to be paid forthwith; and for the defendants to be awarded their costs of the security for costs application, to be awarded forthwith.
I also consider it appropriate to fix those costs by reference to schedule 4.7.1.1 item 2.8, with appropriate adjustments. As was recorded at [195] of the primary reasons, schedule 4.7.1.1, item 2.8 provides an allowance of 4.5 hours at a Senior Practitioner rate for a substantive contested application (for example, for injunction) heard in Judges' chambers, for work which would including drafting the application, conferral, one affidavit, preparation, submissions, appearance and reporting. The amount allowed by reference to schedule 4.7.1.1, item 2.8 for such an application is $2,277 for a hearing of no more than 30 minutes duration.
As to the costs of the interlocutory injunction application, it is appropriate to make an adjustment to the amount allowed by reference to item 2.8 to reflect that it was heard in the course of a special appointment which took two hours (and required a longer hearing than 30 minutes); more than one affidavit was read in support of the application (that is, four of the five affidavits read by counsel on behalf of Life Combat Sports were made in support of that application); the parties were heard on 30 January 2025 and 5 February 2025 in relation to the appropriate form of orders and as to costs; and competing minutes were filed.
As to the costs of the security for costs application, I note that it too was heard in the course of the same special appointment which took two hours (and required a longer hearing than 30 minutes); more than one affidavit was read in support of the application (that is, two affidavits were read and the affidavit of Mr Gregson was relied upon in support of that application); the parties were heard on 30 January 2025 in relation to the appropriate form of orders and on 30 January 2025 and 5 February 2025 as to costs; and competing minutes were filed.
When considering a fair and just amount with respect to the security for costs application, it is not appropriate to make any allowance for the costs incurred by the defendants in preparing the chamber summons filed on 27 November 2024 (which was flawed in so far as security for costs was sought as against Mr and Ms Britten personally and not against Life Combat Sports); for the costs incurred by the defendants in considering the submissions prepared on behalf of Life Combat Sports in response to the chamber summons before amendment; or for the costs incurred by the defendants in preparing a further affidavit deposed by Mr McDonnell on 5 February 2025.[35]
[35] Folio 54 of the court record.
Having regard to each application, I consider it to be appropriate to order that the defendants pay the costs of Life Combat Sports in relation to the interlocutory injunction application fixed in the amount of $4,300 (inclusive of GST and which amount includes the costs of appearance before the court on 30 January 2025 and today), together with the filing fee for the chambers summons in the amount of $449; and to order that Life Combat Sports pay the costs of the defendants in relation to the security for costs application fixed in the amount of $3,800 (inclusive of GST and which amount includes the costs of appearance before the court on 30 January 2025 and today), together with the filing fee for the chambers summons in the amount of $871.
It is also appropriate to order that Life Combat Sports recover its costs thrown away as a consequence of the defendants' amendment to the form of the application for security for costs. I would allow an amount of $286 (half of the Senior Practitioner rate of $572 per hour inclusive of GST) for the submissions contained at paragraphs 23 to 29 of the submissions filed on 16 January 2025.

Conclusion and orders

For these reasons, I will make orders in the following terms:

Interlocutory injunction orders

1.The first defendant must:
(a)until further order, keep a written record of the names, addresses and membership fees paid by each person who attends the first defendant's business from the date of this order;
(b)until further order, pay the sum of $1,350 per fortnight (the first fortnight ending 19 February 2025) into the law practice trust account of the first defendant's solicitors;
(c)until further order, instruct the first defendant's solicitors to provide a trust account receipt of the moneys receipted by them pursuant to order 1(b) of these orders to the solicitors for the plaintiff within seven days of receipt of the moneys each fortnight; and
(d)create a written record of the names, addresses and membership fees paid by each person who attended its business between 17 April 2024 and the date of this order.

2.The parties have liberty to apply with respect to orders 1(b) and (c) of these orders on two business days' notice.

Undertaking as to damages

3.Rebecca Lynn Britten be discharged from her undertaking as to damages given on 8 October 2024.

Costs orders

4.The defendants do pay forthwith the plaintiff's costs of the interlocutory injunction application fixed in the amount of $4,749 (inclusive of GST, disbursements and the costs of appearance on 30 January 2025 and 5 February 2025).
5.The plaintiff do pay forthwith the defendants' costs of the security for costs application fixed in the amount of $4,671 (inclusive of GST, disbursements and the costs of appearance on 30 January 2025 and 5 February 2025).
6.The defendants do forthwith pay the plaintiff's costs thrown away as a consequence of the defendants' amendment to the form of the application for security for costs in the amount of $286 (inclusive of GST).

After hearing counsel, I will also make orders with respect to non‑expert evidence at trial in the form promoted on behalf of the defendants, which orders are agreed by Life Combat Sports, and list the proceeding for directions only on Tuesday, 1 April 2025.

Sch A - Orders made on 30 January 2025

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
CR
Associate to the Honourable Justice Strk
6 FEBRUARY 2025