Philip Usher Constructions Pty Ltd v Cross River Rail Delivery Authority (No 2)

The parties in this case were Philip Usher Constructions Pty Ltd, the applicant, and the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority, the respondent. The dispute pertained to the costs incurred during a proceeding where the Court had previously determined that the applicant did not have a right to claim compensation. Both parties argued that they were successful in the earlier proceeding, leading to the current application to determine whether the applicant was substantially successful at trial and whether there were discretionary factors that should result in a different order than the general rule that costs follow the event.

The primary legal issues the Court had to address were whether the applicant was substantially successful at trial and if any discretionary factors warranted a departure from the general rule that costs should follow the event. The Court needed to evaluate the applicant's success in the earlier proceeding and consider if any exceptional circumstances existed that would justify an alternative costs order. The Court also needed to balance the respective positions of the parties in light of the previous determination.

The Court held that the applicant was not substantially successful at trial because the primary issue of entitlement to compensation was not in its favour. The Court found that the applicant had not achieved its primary objective and did not gain a significant advantage from the earlier proceeding. Additionally, the Court determined that there were no discretionary factors that warranted a different order than the general rule. As such, the Court ordered that Philip Usher Constructions Pty Ltd was to pay the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority’s costs of and incidental to the application, as agreed or assessed on the standard basis.