Oscar and Sankey (Costs)

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia considered an appeal concerning the costs of proceedings between Oscar and Sankey. The underlying dispute involved a claim by Oscar against Sankey, which had been dismissed by a single judge. The appeal to the Full Court focused specifically on the order for costs made by the primary judge.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the primary judge had erred in ordering Oscar to pay Sankey's costs on an indemnity basis. Oscar argued that the costs order was disproportionate to the conduct of the parties and that a standard costs order would have been more appropriate. Sankey contended that the circumstances warranted an indemnity costs order due to Oscar's conduct during the litigation.

The Full Court analysed the principles governing indemnity costs orders, which are exceptional and require a higher threshold than standard costs. The court considered whether Oscar's conduct had been unreasonable, vexatious, or otherwise deserving of a punitive costs order. After reviewing the evidence and submissions, the Full Court found that the primary judge had not erred in exercising their discretion to award indemnity costs. The court held that Oscar's conduct had justified such an order, and therefore, the appeal was dismissed.