Martin v Norton Rose Fulbright Australia (No 2)

In the case of Martin v Norton Rose Fulbright Australia (No 2), the court was required to determine whether a lump sum costs order should be made in favour of the respondent, and if so, to determine the quantum of such an order. The case arose from a dispute between the parties, with the court previously awarding costs in favour of the respondent on 18 December 2019. The applicant objected to the order for costs and sought an oral hearing to challenge the quantum of a lump sum order. The court considered the principles regarding the award of costs and concluded that the matter should be determined on the papers. The court held that the principles regarding the award of costs are well established, and a successful party is entitled to an award of costs in its favour in the absence of special circumstances justifying some other order.

The court further held that the issue of costs is to be determined on the papers, and the applicant’s submission in relation to the order for costs was insufficient to alter the application of ordinary principles. The court noted that the applicant’s primary concern appeared to be with the loss of ability to challenge the respondent’s evidence, but the applicant was not prejudiced in this case. The court concluded that there was no basis to vary the order that the applicant pay the costs of the respondent and that the order for costs in favour of the respondent made in these proceedings on 18 December 2019 was to be awarded in a lump sum, in an amount to be assessed by a Registrar of the Court. The court directed the Registrar to determine the quantum of the respondent’s costs in such a manner as the Registrar deems fit, including, if thought appropriate, on the papers. The court further ordered that the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application for a lump sum cost order were to be paid by the applicant as part of the costs of the proceedings.