Millwood Rise Developments Pty Ltd v Winslow Pty Ltd

The case of Millwood Rise Developments Pty Ltd v Winslow Pty Ltd involved a dispute between the applicant, Millwood, and the respondent, Winslow, arising from a construction contract. The primary issue was whether the costs of an application should follow the event, specifically in the context of the appointment of an arbitrator. Millwood had proposed three candidates for the role of arbitrator on 10 June 2025. Subsequently, on 18 July 2025, Millwood filed an application seeking the appointment of an arbitrator, following which Winslow nominated two proposed arbitrators. Upon the rejection of these nominations, Winslow agreed, on 8 August 2025, to the appointment of Mr Johnston, who was one of the three candidates initially proposed by Millwood.

The court needed to determine whether Millwood was justified in filing the application and whether the costs incurred in this process should be borne by the respondent. The central legal issue was whether the existence of a potential future dispute should have prevented Millwood from proceeding with the current dispute over the appointment of an arbitrator. The court considered that Millwood had proceeded with the application because Winslow had resisted the initial nomination of arbitrators. The court concluded that it was necessary for Millwood to file the application to secure the appointment of Mr Johnston and that Winslow had conceded the relief after the application was filed. Therefore, the court determined that the costs should follow the event, meaning they should be borne by the party who was ultimately unsuccessful in the application.

In light of these findings, the court ordered that the respondent, Winslow, pay the applicant’s costs of the application to be assessed. This decision underscores the principle that costs in legal proceedings often follow the outcome, particularly where a party's actions lead to a successful resolution.