Pinehurst Nominees Pty Ltd v Coeur De Lion Investments Pty Ltd

Pinehurst Nominees Pty Ltd brought an action against Coeur De Lion Investments Pty Ltd (CDLI) seeking specific performance or, in the alternative, damages for breach of a lease of a golf locker and associated golfing rights at the Palmer Coolum Resort. The dispute centred on the repudiation of the lease by CDLI, which the court found was absolute and unjustified. Following a trial, judgment was given in favour of Pinehurst, with CDLI ordered to pay Pinehurst’s costs on the standard basis. CDLI now seeks orders to vary the costs assessor’s certificate or refer specific items back to the costs assessor for reconsideration, pursuant to r 742 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. The court must determine whether the costs assessor’s decision was manifestly wrong, whether the reasons provided were adequate, and if there was an unnecessary duplication of costs due to the change of counsel.

The court identified several key issues in the application. Firstly, whether the fees for two counsel were reasonably necessary given the nature and complexity of the case. Secondly, whether there was an unnecessary duplication of costs due to the change of counsel. Thirdly, whether the costs assessor provided adequate reasons for his assessment. Fourthly, whether the wrong standard was applied by the costs assessor. Lastly, whether the costs assessor was clearly wrong with respect to certain items. The court considered these issues in light of the principles applicable under r 742 of the UCPR and the detailed analysis provided by CDLI.

The court found that the costs assessor had properly exercised his discretion, and that the reasons provided were adequate. The court noted that the change of counsel did not result in an unnecessary duplication of costs, as the new counsel was required to be briefed due to the complexity of the case. The court also found that the costs assessor did not apply the wrong standard and was not clearly wrong with respect to the items in question. Consequently, the court dismissed CDLI’s application and ordered that certain items be referred back to the costs assessor for further reasons within 21 days.