Romanos v Punjabi Fusion Group Pty Ltd (No 2)

The case before the court involved a dispute between Romanos and Punjabi Fusion Group Pty Ltd, as well as two of its directors, regarding the costs associated with various motions. The plaintiff sought a gross costs order, which would require the defendants to pay the plaintiff's assessed costs. In contrast, the defendants argued that only one of them should bear part of the plaintiff's assessed costs. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate allocation of costs between the parties.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff should be granted a gross costs order against all defendants or if the costs should be apportioned between the defendants. The court had to consider the circumstances surrounding the motions and the role each defendant played in the proceedings. The defendants argued that the plaintiff's application for a gross costs order was unreasonable and should not be granted in its entirety. They contended that one of the defendants should bear only a portion of the plaintiff's assessed costs, while the other should not be liable for any costs at all.

The court considered the arguments of both parties and the relevant legal principles. It found that the plaintiff's application for a gross costs order was reasonable given the nature of the motions and the involvement of all defendants. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a gross costs order against all defendants for the costs of the motions. The reasoning was based on the significant involvement of all defendants in the proceedings and the fact that the plaintiff's success in the motions was a collective effort. Consequently, the court made a gross order for costs of motions against all defendants.