Popovic v ACN 098 054 678 Pty Ltd (Costs Ruling)

In the Federal Court, Popovic, the plaintiff, brought a claim against ACN 098 054 678 Pty Ltd, the first defendant, and another party, the second defendant. The plaintiff alleged that injuries sustained in an incident in July 2007 were caused by the first defendant, and subsequently aggravated by the same defendant. The plaintiff's claim against the second defendant pertained to the initial injuries, but not the aggravation. The plaintiff was unsuccessful in their claim against the second defendant but successful against the first defendant. The central issue for the court was whether the plaintiff was entitled to a Bullock or Sanderson order concerning the costs incurred by the second defendant, and if the first defendant was liable for costs relating to the July 2007 incident.

The court considered whether a Bullock order was appropriate, which would require the first defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs against the second defendant. Alternatively, a Sanderson order would shift the liability for costs from the plaintiff to the first defendant. The court evaluated the merits of the plaintiff's claims, the relationship between the defendants, and the nature of the injuries. The court noted that the plaintiff was unsuccessful in their claim against the second defendant, but the first defendant had been found liable for the aggravation of the plaintiff's injuries. The court concluded that the first defendant should bear the costs of the plaintiff's claim against the second defendant, as the claims were related and the first defendant had ultimately been found liable for the plaintiff's injuries.

The court found that the first defendant was liable to pay the plaintiff's costs in relation to the incident of July 2007, as well as the costs of the plaintiff's claim against the second defendant. The court rejected the notion of a Sanderson order, as the first defendant had not been found to be responsible for the plaintiff's initial injuries. Instead, the court ordered the first defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs relating to the second defendant, and also to pay the plaintiff's costs in relation to the July 2007 incident. The court's decision was based on the interrelated nature of the claims and the first defendant's liability for the plaintiff's injuries.