LO v Northern Territory of Australia, JA v Northern Territory of Australia, KT v Northern Territory of Australia, LB v Northern Territory of Australia (Costs of Settlement Conference)

Four applicants sought to challenge the Northern Territory’s liability for costs incurred at a settlement conference held pursuant to Rule 48.12 of the Supreme Court Rules. The applicants argued that the Northern Territory was liable for the costs of the settlement conference because they had not refused to participate in the conference. The Supreme Court of the Northern Territory was asked to determine the circumstances under which a party may be liable for the costs of a settlement conference and the meaning of refusing to participate in such a conference. Additionally, the court had to consider the extent to which evidence of communications in the course of settlement negotiations may be led and whether there was an inconsistency between the Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act and the Supreme Court Rules.

The court held that a party may be liable for the costs of a settlement conference if they refused to participate in the conference. The court found that the usual position is that costs are costs of the proceedings, and the party that refused to participate in the settlement conference would be liable for the costs. The court also held that the meaning of refusing to participate in a settlement conference is not limited to a party’s physical absence from the conference but may also include a party’s refusal to engage in the conference’s process. Regarding the admissibility of evidence of communications in the course of settlement negotiations, the court held that the general rule at common law, under the Supreme Court Rules and the Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act is that such evidence may not be adduced. However, there are exceptions to this general rule, and the court found an inconsistency between the Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act and the Supreme Court Rules.

The court found that there was an inconsistency between the Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act and the Supreme Court Rules concerning the admissibility of evidence of communications in the course of settlement negotiations. The court held that the statute intended to be a complete statement of law and that the rules were invalid to the extent of the inconsistency. The court also found that the Northern Territory was not liable for the costs of the settlement conference because the applicants had not established that they had not refused to participate in the conference.

The court ordered that the Northern Territory was not liable for the costs of the settlement conference. The court also found that the Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act was intended to be a complete statement of law and that the Supreme Court Rules were invalid to the extent of the inconsistency.