Natch v Stennson Pty Ltd (No 4)

Natch v Stennson Pty Ltd (No 4) involved an application by Stennson for costs related to a taxation process following the principal proceeding and an appeal proceeding. The applicants, Natch, had been successful in one ground of objection in the taxation process but had failed to raise this ground before the taxing officer. Additionally, the applicants' conduct had resulted in substantial wasted costs. Stennson sought an award of costs on a lump sum basis and an opportunity to apply for a different costs order. The applicants contested the amount of costs and the appropriateness of the lump sum award.

The legal issues before the court included whether the applicants could raise a ground of objection not taken before the taxing officer, whether the applicants could rely on a notice to admit and affidavit evidence that was not presented to the taxing officer, and the court's discretion to dispense with compliance with the Federal Court Rules. Additionally, the court had to determine the extent to which a solicitor’s costs could be recovered when the solicitor’s name is not on the Register of Practitioners.

The court found that the applicants could not raise a new ground of objection after the taxing officer's decision and that their reliance on new evidence was inappropriate. It exercised its discretion under rule 1.34 of the Federal Court Rules to award costs on a lump sum basis, considering the applicants' conduct and the wasted costs. The court also noted that the costs of a solicitor not on the Register of Practitioners could still be recoverable if they were reasonable and necessary. The court ordered Stennson to provide an affidavit verifying the costs and Stennson was to be paid a lump sum of $8,815 for the costs of the taxation review, with an opportunity to apply for a different costs order.