Poulos v Eberstaller (No 2)

In the Federal Court, Poulos sued Eberstaller for defamation. The dispute arose out of an online post made by Eberstaller that implied Poulos had committed perjury. The matter was a sequel to an earlier case, and the court was asked to determine the costs of the latest proceeding. The court had to decide whether to make a gross fixed sum costs order in favour of the plaintiff, and if so, what the appropriate amount should be.

The court considered the nature and complexity of the proceedings, the conduct of both parties, and the public interest in the resolution of the matter. The court noted that the defamation case was not particularly complex, but the conduct of the defendant had been vexatious and oppressive, and there had been a significant public interest in the outcome. The court held that a gross fixed sum costs order was appropriate, and set the amount at $70,000.

The reasoning of the court was that a costs order was necessary to deter the defendant from continuing to pursue a baseless claim, and to compensate the plaintiff for the time and expense incurred in defending the action. The court noted that the amount of the order was not excessive, given the public interest in the matter and the conduct of the defendant. The court emphasised that the order was not intended to punish the defendant, but rather to ensure that the plaintiff was adequately compensated for the costs of the proceeding.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceeding, to be taxed on a gross fixed sum basis in the sum of $70,000, together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of judgment until the date of payment.