Moore (Scheme Administrator) v Ochkit Pty Ltd (No.2)

In the case of Moore (Scheme Administrator) v Ochkit Pty Ltd (No.2), the central issue revolved around the application of the general rule regarding costs in civil proceedings. The applicant, Moore, sought indemnity costs against the eighth and ninth respondents after their application was dismissed. The respondents were self-represented litigants, prompting a discussion on whether the general rule should be departed from to award costs on an indemnity basis.

The court needed to determine if there were sufficient grounds to depart from the established principle that costs generally follow the event. This involved examining the conduct of the self-represented litigants and whether their actions warranted a deviation from the standard cost-bearing rule. The court's analysis focused on the fairness and appropriateness of imposing indemnity costs on the respondents, given their status as unrepresented parties.

The court concluded that there were no compelling reasons to depart from the general rule of costs following the event. It was determined that the self-representation of the respondents did not justify an indemnity cost order. Consequently, the eighth and ninth respondents were ordered to pay the applicant's costs of the application on the standard basis. This decision underscored the importance of adhering to the usual cost-bearing principle unless exceptional circumstances warranted otherwise.