ROJ Property Group Pty Ltd v Eventpower Property Pty Ltd (Costs)

The matter before the Court involved an application by ROJ Property Group Pty Ltd for modification of a restrictive covenant against Eventpower Property Pty Ltd. The application was successful, and ROJ Property Group sought an order that Eventpower Property pay their costs. The application was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue before the Court was whether Eventpower Property's conduct throughout the case was irresponsible and whether it made groundless objections to the application for modification of the restrictive covenant.

In determining whether Eventpower Property's conduct was irresponsible, the Court considered the relevant legal principles and authorities. The Court noted that a defendant may be ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs if their conduct in defending the case was irresponsible or vexatious. The Court referred to a number of cases in which the conduct of the defendant was found to be irresponsible, including Re Withers, Stanhill Pty Ltd v Jackson, Walker v Bridgewood, Mamfredas Investment Group Pty Ltd v PropertyIT and Consulting Pty Limited, Wong v McConville, Jiang v Monaygon Pty Ltd, and Lahanis v Livesay. The Court also noted that a party may be ordered to pay costs if they make groundless objections to an application.

The Court found that Eventpower Property's conduct throughout the case was irresponsible and that it made groundless objections to the application for modification of the restrictive covenant. The Court noted that Eventpower Property had made a Calderbank offer to settle the case, which ROJ Property Group had rejected. The Court found that it was unreasonable for Eventpower Property to reject the Calderbank offer and that this contributed to its decision that Eventpower Property's conduct was irresponsible. The Court also found that Eventpower Property made groundless objections to the application for modification of the restrictive covenant, which further contributed to its decision that Eventpower Property's conduct was irresponsible.

As a result, the Court made an order that Eventpower Property pay ROJ Property Group's costs of and incidental to the application.