National Trustees Executors and Agency Co of Australasia Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (No 2)

The case of *National Trustees Executors and Agency Co of Australasia Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (No 2)* concerned a dispute between the National Trustees Executors and Agency Co of Australasia Ltd (the taxpayer) and the Federal Commissioner of Taxation (the Commissioner) regarding the costs of a case stated. The taxpayer had succeeded on some questions posed in the case stated, while the Commissioner had succeeded on others.

The central legal issue before the court was how to allocate costs when parties achieve success on different, independent questions within a single case stated. Specifically, the court had to determine whether parties were entitled to costs for arguing questions that were not ultimately determinative of the overall outcome due to the answers given to other, unrelated questions.

The court reasoned that in a case stated, where distinct questions are posed, costs should generally follow the event for each question. However, it also held that a party should not be awarded costs for arguing a question that became unnecessary to decide because of the answer given to another question, even if that other question was decided in their favour. This principle aimed to ensure that costs were awarded only for issues that genuinely required the court's determination and were argued by the parties.