Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Nicholls (No 7)

The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory considered an application by Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd (the applicant) concerning oral submissions on costs. The dispute arose after the Court had previously heard applications for security for costs and related matters, with costs being reserved. The applicant sought to advance oral submissions on the issue of costs, while the sixth and seventh respondents sought costs orders in their favour.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether a single judge, sitting as the Court of Appeal, possessed the jurisdiction to refuse an applicant's request for an oral hearing on costs and instead determine the matter on the papers. A secondary issue, contingent on the first, was whether, in the specific circumstances of this case, determining costs on the papers would be the appropriate course of action. The Court also considered whether it had the power to permit oral submissions on costs, or conversely, to refuse such a request and proceed on written submissions.

The Court reasoned that section 37J(1)(k) of the *Supreme Court Act 1933* (ACT) empowered a single judge to hear and decide matters of practice and procedure in the Court of Appeal, which included applications for security for costs and related issues. Furthermore, section 37J(1)(l) permitted a single judge to deal with costs incidental to such matters. The Court noted that while it had the power to make costs orders, the specific question was whether it could do so without an oral hearing. The Court observed that it was common practice for costs to be determined on the papers in such interlocutory applications to avoid incurring further costs for the parties. The Court ultimately determined that it had the power to decide the costs issue on the papers, but in this instance, it would list the matter for an oral hearing on costs.