Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (No 2)

Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (No 2) involved a complex litigation scenario with multiple proceedings and appeals. The case revolved around the determination of costs incurred by the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (ANZ) in various legal proceedings and the question of whether these costs should be awarded in a lump sum. The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia was tasked with deciding this matter. The legal issues primarily concerned the application of the Costs Practice Note and the Federal Court Rules in determining whether a lump sum cost award was appropriate in this context.

The court considered that it would be most efficient and result in significant cost savings if the ANZ's costs in the Andrews Proceeding and its trial costs in the proceedings involving the Paciocco parties were determined together, along with the costs of the appeals. The court was also mindful of the need to apply the Costs Practice Note and the Federal Court Rules appropriately. Given the complexity and interrelation of the proceedings, the court concluded that the substantive orders sought by ANZ should be made, and the various costs orders in favour of ANZ should be awarded in a lump sum. The quantification of the lump sum should be conducted jointly with each relevant proceeding and appeal.

The court further directed that the costs should follow the event and be determined in a similar manner to the other costs awarded in favour of ANZ. It left the determination of specific directions to the judge handling the interlocutory application, emphasising that the appropriate approach to the hearing of the costs dispute would be considered by the parties and the judge. The court acknowledged that while a judge could hear and determine a lump sum costs award, the determination of the lump sum quantum could be referred to a registrar, or alternatively, a separate issue could be referred to a referee. These options were left for consideration by the parties and the judge.

The court made several orders, including that the costs referred to in specific orders be awarded in a lump sum. The quantification of these costs was to be conducted jointly with the relevant proceedings and appeals. Additionally, the court directed that the costs of certain interlocutory applications be awarded in a lump sum and quantified jointly with the other costs. The final orders were to be referred to Justice Middleton for determination, considering the interlocutory application filed on 19 December 2016 in proceeding VID 811 of 2010.