Nolan v Nolan (No 2)

The defendants in this case sought a departure from the general rule regarding costs following the event. The case was heard in the Family Court of Australia. The second, third, and fourth defendants argued that they had succeeded on one issue in the application and that the plaintiff had caused unnecessary costs to be incurred. As such, they sought to exercise the court’s discretion to depart from the general rule. The court was required to determine whether it should exercise its discretion in this instance.

The court noted that the general rule regarding costs following the event is a fundamental principle of the Australian legal system. However, the court also acknowledged that there may be circumstances in which it is appropriate to depart from this rule. In this case, the court found that the defendants had not demonstrated any circumstances that warranted a departure from the general rule. The court also found that the defendants had not demonstrated any fault on the part of the plaintiff that would justify a departure from the general rule. As such, the court found that it was not appropriate to depart from the general rule in this case.

The court dismissed the defendants' application and ordered that the defendants pay the plaintiff's costs on the standard basis. The court found that the defendants had not demonstrated any circumstances that warranted a departure from the general rule and that it was not appropriate to do so in this case. The court also found that the defendants had not demonstrated any fault on the part of the plaintiff that would justify a departure from the general rule. As such, the court found that the defendants were liable for the plaintiff's costs on the standard basis.

The final orders of the court were that the documents numbered 1, 2, 5, 12, and 13 in Part 2 of the Schedule of the Second, Third, and Fourth Defendants’ Fourth Further Supplementary List of Documents dated 18 December 2012 were not subject to legal professional privilege. The second, third, and fourth defendants' application filed on 12 April 2013 was dismissed. The second, third, and fourth defendants were to pay the plaintiff's costs on the standard basis.