Rivett Arboricultural & Waste Equipment Hire Pty Ltd v Conor Patrick Evans (No 2)

In the case of Rivett Arboricultural & Waste Equipment Hire Pty Ltd v Conor Patrick Evans (No 2), the Court of Appeal was tasked with addressing issues concerning the allocation of costs in relation to an appeal. The respondents, Conor Evans and Christopher Evans, sought an order for the unsuccessful appellants to cover the costs of the appeal on a solicitor-client basis. Meanwhile, the third respondent, who was also a cross-appellant, based their request on a letter of offer and sought orders for the first and second appellants to pay the costs of the appeal, or alternatively, to indemnify the third respondent for costs incurred by the appellants, or to cover the third respondent's costs of appeal on a party and party basis.

The court needed to determine whether the departure from the general rule of costs was justified and whether the appellants should bear the costs of the appeal between parties and parties. The central issue was whether the appellants acted unreasonably in appealing against the apportionment of liability as between defendants and whether they should continue with the appeal despite the offer made by WMC. The court also had to decide on the appropriate allocation of costs considering the unsuccessful nature of the appeals against the apportionment of liability.

The Court of Appeal concluded that Rivett and Arbor did not act unreasonably in appealing against the apportionment of liability as between defendants and in persisting with the appeal despite the offer made by WMC. Given that the appeals against the apportionment of liability were unsuccessful, the court ordered that there be no order regarding the costs of the appeals against the apportionment of liability. The court dismissed the appeals by both Rivett and Arbor, as well as WMC, and ordered that the appellants pay the respondents' costs of appeal as between party and party. There was no order as to the costs of the appeal as between Rivett and Arbor as appellants and WMC as respondent. The judges agreed with the proposed orders and the reasoning provided by the Chief Justice.