Purvis v Dairy Adjustment Authority (No 2)

The case of Purvis v Dairy Adjustment Authority (No 2) involved the applicants challenging the costs incurred by the respondent, the Dairy Adjustment Authority, for the notice of contention. The applicants argued that the respondent's statement of facts and contentions was excessively long, resulting in unnecessary costs. They cited Practice Note 1 as a guideline for the length of submissions. Practice Note 1, which applies to appeals and other proceedings before the Full Court, stipulates that outlines of submissions should not exceed 10 pages. The court was required to determine whether the length of the respondent's statement provided a basis for departing from the standard rule that costs follow the event.

The court examined whether the respondent's statement of facts and contentions was excessively lengthy and whether it warranted a deviation from the usual cost-bearing rule. It noted that while Practice Note 1 applied to the proceedings, Mansfield J had directed the parties to file a statement of facts and contentions rather than an outline of submissions. Therefore, the court found that the note did not apply to the specifics of this case. Ultimately, the court was not persuaded that the length of the respondent's statement justified any departure from the norm that costs follow the event.

Consequently, the court ruled that the applicants were not entitled to have the respondent's costs of the notice of contention. Instead, it ordered that the respondent pay 50 per cent of the applicants' costs for preparing the appeal papers. The applicants were to bear the remaining costs of the application, excluding those related to the notice of contention. The costs payable by the respondent were to be offset against the costs payable by the applicants. The judges concurred with the Chief Justice's reasons and proposed orders.