Murphy v Westpac Banking Corporation (No 2)

Murphy v Westpac Banking Corporation (No 2) was a matter before the Federal Court of Australia involving a dispute over the costs of multiple proceedings between the parties. The applicant sought a review of the costs orders made in previous proceedings, arguing that the apportionment of costs was unreasonable and that the offer to compromise should be taken into account. The respondent, Westpac Banking Corporation, argued that the costs should be apportioned in a different manner and that the offer to compromise should not be considered. The court had to determine the appropriate apportionment of costs between the parties and whether the offer to compromise should be taken into account.

The court held that the apportionment of costs should be reconsidered, taking into account the offer to compromise. The court found that the offer to compromise was genuine and that it should be taken into account when determining the costs orders. The court also found that the apportionment of costs should be based on the principle of indemnity costs, which means that the losing party should pay the costs of the winning party. The court further held that the respondent was to pay 50 per cent of the applicant's costs for the period up to and including 11 am on 6 December 2011, and that the applicant was to pay the respondent's costs on an indemnity basis for the period after 11 am on 6 December 2011.

The court made several orders, including that judgment be entered for the applicant in various amounts, that all previous costs orders be vacated, and that the respondent pay 50 per cent of the applicant's costs for the period up to and including 11 am on 6 December 2011. The court also ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs on an indemnity basis for the period after 11 am on 6 December 2011, and that the respondent file and serve an interlocutory application seeking an order that its costs be paid in a fixed and specific sum rather than be quantified by taxation. The respondent's liability under the orders was to be offset against the applicant's liability, and the orders were to be stayed pending a further order or if the court ordered that costs be awarded on a lump sum basis. The court also granted liberty to apply on the giving of 48 hours' notice.