Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Nicholls (No 9)

The applicant, Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd, appealed to the Supreme Court of New South Wales against costs orders made by Loukas-Karlsson J in relation to interlocutory applications. The appeal concerned the appropriate costs orders for the seventh respondent, who was considered a silent observer, and the sixth respondent, whose costs were sought on a basis other than the usual.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the seventh respondent was entitled to its costs on the usual basis, and whether the sixth respondent should receive its costs on an indemnity basis rather than the usual basis. This latter question involved an assessment of the applicant's conduct during the proceedings and its impact on the length and nature of the hearings.

Loukas-Karlsson J reasoned that the seventh respondent, having played a minimal role, was entitled to its costs on the usual basis. However, regarding the sixth respondent, the Court found that the applicant's conduct had significantly extended the hearing time by introducing irrelevant issues and attempting to re-agitate matters that had already been decided or were irrelevant to the core dispute. Furthermore, counsel for the applicant had engaged in personal attacks on other representatives. Consequently, the Court determined that indemnity costs were appropriate for the sixth respondent due to the applicant's conduct.