Oxer v Astec Paints Australia Pty Ltd

The appeal before the court concerns an application to amend a proposed costs order, seeking to make additional non-parties liable for costs in relation to specific applications. The parties involved are Oxer, the appellant, and Astec Paints Australia Pty Ltd, the respondent, with Mark Kenneth Waters, Theodora Waters, MK Waters Pty Ltd, and Pinn Street Investments Pty Ltd also being non-parties implicated in the costs orders. The dispute revolves around the refusal of a master to make costs orders against certain non-parties in relation to particular applications and the subsequent application by the appellant to amend the proposed orders to make additional non-parties liable for costs.

The court was required to determine whether the master erred in refusing non-party costs orders and to consider the principles for the award of non-party costs. Additionally, the court had to assess the relevance of prior warnings that non-parties would be pursued for costs and the evidence of non-parties' role in the litigation. The court's reasoning involved a detailed analysis of the principles governing non-party costs orders, the role of non-parties in the litigation, and the evidence presented regarding their involvement. The court concluded that the master had erred in refusing the non-party costs orders and that the appellant was entitled to recover costs from the additional non-parties.

In summary, the court allowed the appeal insofar as it related to the involvement of Mr and Mrs Waters in the application determined on 1 May 2007. The court set aside the orders made by the master on 26 October 2007 and granted permission to amend the proposed costs orders. The final orders included making Mark Kenneth Waters, Theodora Waters, and MK Waters Pty Ltd jointly and severally liable with the defendant for the costs of the plaintiff in the action and ordering Pinn Street Investments Pty Ltd to pay costs as well. The court also dismissed the application made by the defendant on 20 February 2007 and fixed the costs of the plaintiff at $13,000.