Panos v FSS Trustee Corporation (No 2)

The parties in this case were Panos, the plaintiff, and FSS Trustee Corporation, the defendant. The dispute was centred on the allocation of costs, specifically in relation to a hearing that was vacated due to a late change of position by the plaintiff. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The legal issues before the court were whether the successful defendant should be ordered to pay the costs of the vacated hearing and, if so, whether the plaintiff and defendant should bear their own costs for issues on which they were unsuccessful.

The court held that the successful defendant should not be ordered to pay the costs of the hearing that was vacated due to the plaintiff's late change of position. However, the court found that the plaintiff and defendant should bear their own costs for the issues on which they were unsuccessful. The court reasoned that since the costs of the proceedings before the vacation of the hearing were not ordered, it was appropriate to make a single order for the costs of the proceedings after the hearing was vacated. This approach ensured that the parties bore the costs of the issues for which they were unsuccessful, thereby providing clarity and finality to the costs dispute.

The court's decision resulted in a single order for the costs of the proceedings after the hearing was vacated. The plaintiff and defendant were each responsible for their own costs relating to the issues on which they were unsuccessful. This outcome provided a clear resolution to the costs dispute, ensuring that the parties bore the costs of the issues for which they were unsuccessful, and avoided the potential for multiple orders and confusion regarding cost allocation.