Milner v Conetip P/L

In the case of Milner v Conetip P/L, the plaintiff sought to alter an existing costs order to shift the burden of costs onto the defendant on an indemnity basis. The plaintiff was successful in the underlying proceeding but sought additional costs under the general rule of costs following their victory. The defendant opposed the plaintiff's application, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to justify an order for indemnity costs. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issue for the court to determine was whether the plaintiff had provided sufficient evidence to support their application for indemnity costs. The court had to consider the relevant principles governing costs in civil litigation, particularly focusing on the circumstances under which a court may order costs on an indemnity basis. The court also needed to assess the evidence presented by both parties regarding the nature and extent of the litigation and the circumstances surrounding the plaintiff's success.

The court found that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to justify an order for costs on an indemnity basis. The plaintiff's application was based on a general assertion of the defendant's unreasonable litigation conduct without specific evidence to support this claim. The court emphasised that an indemnity costs order is not to be granted lightly and requires clear justification. The court concluded that the plaintiff's evidence did not meet the required standard, and therefore, the application was refused. Additionally, the court ordered that the plaintiffs were to pay the first defendant's costs of responding to their application, to be assessed on the standard basis.

In light of the court's findings, the application to alter the costs order made on 20 November 2001 was refused. The plaintiffs were also ordered to pay the first defendant’s costs of responding to their application for indemnity costs, to be assessed on the standard basis. This decision underscores the importance of providing detailed and specific evidence when seeking an order for indemnity costs and highlights the court's cautious approach to such applications.