Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Porter (No 2)

Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd (MWP) sought to have certain interlocutory orders reconsidered, arguing it had not been given a sufficient opportunity to be heard. The orders in question related to the costs of a security for costs application and lump-sum costs orders. The Federal Court was required to determine whether MWP was denied a sufficient opportunity to present its case, which is a permissible ground for reconsideration under r 39.05(c) of the Federal Court Rules 2011. The court noted that while Mr Wilson, representing MWP, had attempted to address the court on the matter of costs, he was not allowed to do so. The court found that MWP, not Mr Wilson, was the applicant and that Mr Bennett, MWP's representative, had been present and had not objected to the costs orders. The court held that there was no denial of a sufficient opportunity to be heard and dismissed the application.

The court's reasoning was grounded in the principle of finality, which discourages reopening of interlocutory orders unless there are exceptional circumstances. The court referred to previous cases which emphasised the limited circumstances in which interlocutory orders could be reconsidered. The court held that the applicant's argument did not meet the threshold for reconsideration as there was no misapprehension of facts or law on the part of the court that could not be attributed to the applicant's neglect or default. The application was dismissed, and the previous orders were reinstated.