McCabe v Riechelmann (No 3)

McCabe v Riechelmann (No 3) is a case before an Australian court that deals with the issue of costs associated with legal proceedings. The plaintiff, McCabe, is seeking costs from the defendant, Riechelmann, in relation to various stages of the litigation. The matter has reached the point where the court must determine the specifics of the costs that are to be paid, including whether certain fees and disbursements are included, and how they are to be calculated. The court must also consider whether certain costs should be stayed pending the outcome of an appeal.

The legal issues before the court were primarily concerned with the interpretation of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 and the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014. The court had to decide whether the capped costs should include the Goods and Services Tax (GST) and how to treat disbursements within the orders. Furthermore, the court needed to address whether certain costs should be stayed pending the determination of an appeal, and how to allocate the costs of the Notice of Motion.

In delivering its decision, the court clarified that the capped costs would be set at $10,000 for legal services, as defined by the relevant regulations. The court confirmed that this amount included barristers' fees as conceded by the plaintiff. The court also ruled that disbursements were to be paid by the defendant unless specifically limited by regulation. Regarding the stay of costs, the court accepted the defendant's undertakings and stayed the costs orders until the appeal was determined or further order. The costs of the Notice of Motion were to be considered part of the costs of the appeal.

The court made several orders to reflect its decision. The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the Statement of Claim proceedings, up to a capped amount, and any allowable disbursements. The defendant was also to pay the plaintiff's costs of the Cross-Claim proceedings on the ordinary basis until a certain date and on an indemnity basis thereafter. Additionally, the defendant was to cover the court hearing fees. The court granted a stay on the costs orders pending the outcome of the appeal, and the costs of the Notice of Motion were to be considered part of the appeal costs.