Naro Investments Pty Ltd v Benjamin and Khoury Pty Ltd (No.2)

Naro Investments Pty Ltd and Benjamin and Khoury Pty Ltd were involved in a dispute concerning a gross sum costs order, which was heard by the court. The plaintiffs, Naro Investments, were former clients who had their claim struck out, while the defendants, Benjamin and Khoury, were the solicitors who were awarded judgment on their cross-claim. The defendants sought a gross sum costs order instead of the usual assessed costs. Both parties agreed to have the matter resolved based on written submissions, with the former clients not presenting any arguments.

The legal issue before the court was whether a specified gross sum should replace the assessed costs and, if so, what amount would be appropriate. The court had to consider the Civil Procedure Act 2005, specifically section 98(4)(c), which provides the basis for determining the costs in such disputes. The defendants argued that their actions warranted a gross sum costs order due to the unique circumstances of the case, including the fact that they represented themselves for a portion of the proceedings.

The court considered the defendants' submissions and the statutory framework provided by the Civil Procedure Act. It determined that the defendants' conduct warranted a gross sum costs order. The court found that the amount sought by the defendants was reasonable and appropriate given the circumstances. Consequently, the court ordered that the defendants were entitled to a gross sum costs order in the specified amount.

The final orders of the court included a determination that the defendants were entitled to a gross sum costs order in the amount specified, reflecting the unique nature of the case and the statutory provisions governing such costs. The court's decision was based on the defendants' submissions and the legal framework provided by the Civil Procedure Act, ensuring that the appropriate costs were awarded in the circumstances.