Northern SEQ Distributor-Retailer Authority t/as Unitywater v Stockland North Lakes Development Pty Ltd (No 2)

The case involved the Northern SEQ Distributor-Retailer Authority trading as Unitywater, who sued Stockland North Lakes Development Pty Ltd and another entity. The dispute centred on costs following a litigation where Unitywater was substantially successful but did not prevail on a particular issue. This issue had significant implications as it determined whether a substantial sum was immediately payable. The matter was heard in the Queensland Land Court. The primary legal issue before the court was whether Unitywater, despite being largely successful, should have its costs reduced due to failing on a crucial issue. This question delved into the established principle that costs generally follow the event, and whether this principle should be departed from in circumstances where a party's success was not total.

The court examined the extent of Unitywater's success and the nature of the issue on which it did not prevail. It was determined that the failed issue was not a minor or subsidiary point but had a direct impact on the financial outcome of the case. The court also considered the submissions of the first defendant, who argued for a reduced costs order, and the second defendant's position that it should not bear any additional costs due to its limited involvement. The court held that the failure of Unitywater on this particular issue did not warrant a reduction in the costs it would otherwise recover, as the issue was not a peripheral matter but central to the financial relief sought. The court further noted that the method of commencing the proceeding by application, rather than by claim, was not so unreasonable as to warrant a departure from the general rule of costs following the event.

In its decision, the court ordered that the first defendant would pay 90 per cent of Unitywater's costs and the full costs of the second defendant. This ruling maintained the principle that costs generally follow the event, while also acknowledging the substantial success of Unitywater in the overall litigation. The first defendant was thus required to pay a significant portion of the costs, reflecting its role in the dispute and the substantial success of Unitywater, despite the specific issue on which it did not prevail.