Loizou v Derrimut Enterprises Pty Ltd (No 2)

In the matter of Loizou v Derrimut Enterprises Pty Ltd (No 2), the plaintiffs sought to recover costs from the successful second and third defendants. The nature of the dispute involved a complex set of proceedings that led to the involvement of multiple defendants and varying outcomes. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue before the court was whether the plaintiffs were entitled to have their costs paid by the second and third defendants who emerged victorious in the proceedings.

The court had to determine the appropriate allocation of costs in light of the unusual circumstances of the case. The plaintiffs argued for an order that their costs be paid by the second and third defendants. However, the defendants contended that there was no valid basis for such an order. The court examined the precedents set in Ritter v Godfrey and Verna Trading Pty Ltd v New India Assurance Co Ltd, which established that in cases where there are exceptional circumstances, costs may not be awarded as a matter of course. The court found that the proceedings in this case indeed presented such unusual circumstances.

Given the unique nature of the litigation and the lack of a solid basis for shifting the costs to the second and third defendants, the court declined to make an order for costs. The second and third defendants were therefore deprived of the costs order they had obtained in their favour. The decision underscores the importance of considering the specific context of each case when determining the allocation of costs. No further orders as to costs were made by the court.