Moussa v Camden Council (No.7)

The matter before the court was an application for an assessment of costs, brought by the Camden Council against the plaintiffs in a class action. The plaintiffs, represented by Moussa, sought damages in relation to alleged defects in strata titles. The dispute centred on the appropriate costs to be awarded to the Council, given their partial success in the litigation. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate method of assessing costs in the circumstances where one party had achieved significant success in the proceedings, yet was not entirely victorious. The court had to consider whether the costs incurred by the Council were proportionate to the degree of success achieved and whether the formulation of common questions in the representative proceedings was a necessary part of the litigation costs for both parties. The court was also tasked with determining whether a Merck order, which allows the court to make a provisional assessment of costs, was applicable in this case.

The court found that the costs incurred by the Council were not excessive given the degree of success achieved. It held that the formulation of common questions in representative proceedings was an inherent part of the costs for both parties. The court concluded that the Merck order was not applicable in this case, as it was not appropriate to make a provisional assessment of costs. The court ordered that the plaintiffs were to pay the Council’s costs of the application in the sum of $10,000.

This decision underscores the importance of a balanced approach to costs in complex litigation, particularly in cases involving class actions. The court’s reasoning highlights the need to consider the unique circumstances of each case when assessing costs, ensuring that the outcome is fair and just for both parties involved.