Onza Industries Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Plath Family Discretionary Trust v Tingalpa Tyre and Mechanical Pty Ltd (No 2)

In this case, the applicant, Onza Industries Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Plath Family Discretionary Trust, sought costs from the respondent, Tingalpa Tyre and Mechanical Pty Ltd, under an indemnity basis. The application arose from proceedings where the applicant's notice to vacate had lapsed, and the respondent had sought an extension of a caveat. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The central legal issue was whether the costs order sought by the applicant against the respondent, who was a litigant in person, should be assessed on an indemnity basis. The applicant argued that the respondent's actions had been unreasonable and vexatious, justifying an indemnity costs order. The respondent contended that, as a litigant in person, the indemnity basis was not appropriate and that costs should be assessed on a party/party basis.

The court determined that, given the respondent's status as a litigant in person, the appropriate basis for quantifying costs was on a party/party basis. The court noted that the respondent's lack of legal representation did not excuse them from reasonable conduct in legal proceedings. However, the court emphasised that the respondent's status as a litigant in person warranted a more balanced approach to costs. The court held that the respondent's actions, while not exemplary, did not warrant an indemnity costs order. Instead, the court found that a party/party basis was more appropriate given the respondent's status and the nature of the dispute.

As a result, the court dismissed the applicant's application for costs on an indemnity basis and ordered that the costs be assessed on a party/party basis. This decision highlights the importance of considering the status of litigants in person when determining the appropriate basis for costs in legal proceedings.