Rahme v Benjamin & Khoury Pty Ltd

The appeal before the court involved the parties Rahme and Benjamin & Khoury Pty Ltd. The dispute centred around a notice of motion seeking orders to set aside a costs order following the amendment of the notice, which removed an applicant. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The court was tasked with determining whether the costs incurred due to the amendment were more than de minimis, whether the costs order was sought for an ulterior purpose, and whether it was appropriate for the costs order to be made in those terms.

The court examined the grounds of appeal presented by Rahme, which amounted to 14 in total. The primary contention was that the costs incurred as a result of the amendment to the notice of motion were not merely nominal or insignificant. Furthermore, the court considered whether the costs order was intended to serve an ulterior purpose rather than being a genuine reflection of the costs incurred. The court also assessed the appropriateness of the terms in which the costs order was made.

In its judgment, the court found that the costs incurred due to the amendment were indeed more than de minimis and that the costs order was not sought for an ulterior purpose. However, the court determined that the terms in which the costs order was made were not appropriate. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the costs order was set aside. The court subsequently made a more limited costs order to reflect the actual costs incurred.

The final orders of the court were to set aside the previous costs order and to make a new, more limited costs order reflecting the actual costs incurred by the parties.