Menegazzo v PricewaterhouseCoopers (a firm)

In Menegazzo v PricewaterhouseCoopers (a firm), the plaintiff Mark Menegazzo sought to challenge the costs awarded to the second and third defendants, Brendan and Debra Menegazzo, from two interlocutory applications. The defendants were represented by Queen’s Counsel at these applications, and the plaintiff was also represented by Queen’s Counsel. The costs assessor assessed the defendants’ costs on the standard basis, approving the defendants' Queen’s Counsel fees. The plaintiff argued that the costs assessor erred in principle by allowing the defendants' Queen’s Counsel fees.

The central issue for the court was whether the costs assessor erred in principle by approving the defendants' Queen’s Counsel fees on the standard basis. The court had to consider the appropriate basis for assessing costs in such circumstances, particularly where all parties were represented by Queen’s Counsel. The court examined whether the costs assessor's decision to approve the defendants' Queen’s Counsel fees was consistent with the principles governing costs assessments on the standard basis.

The court found that while the costs assessor did not err in principle, there was an error in the calculation of certain costs. Specifically, the court reduced the amount allowed for certain professional fees and adjusted the overall costs awarded. The court noted that the standard basis of costs assessment should reflect what is reasonably incurred, but also took into account the principle that a party should not be advantaged or disadvantaged because of the level of legal representation chosen. Consequently, the court varied the costs assessment to reflect the correct amount owed by the plaintiff to the defendants, and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants’ costs of the application.