Pharmos Nominees Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Taxation (No 2)

Pharmos Nominees Pty Ltd, the appellant, contested an assessment of stamp duty imposed by the Commissioner of State Taxation, the respondent. The appellant sought to have the order for costs on the appeal adjusted so that the Commissioner would only recover 90 per cent of his costs to be taxed. This request was based on the argument that the Commissioner had abandoned two arguments in opposing the appeal. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellant was entitled to an order for costs that deviated from the general rule, where the losing party in a legal case pays the costs of the winning party. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the Commissioner should only recover 90 per cent of his costs due to the abandonment of two arguments. The High Court considered whether it was appropriate to depart from the general rule of costs in this case. The court noted that the general rule was that the losing party pays the costs of the winning party, but there were exceptions where the court could order otherwise. In this instance, the court acknowledged that the Commissioner had indeed abandoned two arguments in opposing the appeal, which was a factor that could be taken into account when determining the order for costs. However, the court held that the circumstances did not warrant a departure from the general rule of costs. The High Court concluded that, while the abandonment of arguments by the Commissioner was a relevant consideration, it did not justify a deviation from the standard costs order. The court maintained that the general rule should apply, and the Commissioner was entitled to recover all of his costs to be taxed. Therefore, the appellant's request for an order that the Commissioner recover only 90 per cent of his costs was dismissed. The court's decision reinforced the principle that deviations from the general rule of costs should only be made in exceptional circumstances, and the abandonment of arguments by one party was not sufficient grounds for such a departure.