Romascu v Manolache (No 2)

In the matter of Romascu v Manolache (No 2), the plaintiff, Romascu, sought costs from the defendant, Manolache, who was represented by a lawyer throughout the proceedings. Romascu, who appeared as a self-represented litigant, applied for an order that the defendant's costs of the proceedings be paid by the defendant, including the costs of the costs application as agreed or assessed on the ordinary basis. Romascu also argued that there should be no order for the defendant's costs of the proceedings. The dispute arose from a legal action where Romascu, the plaintiff, was successful in their claim against Manolache, the defendant. The case was heard and determined by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the court were whether Romascu, as a successful self-represented plaintiff, was entitled to costs from the defendant, including the costs of the costs application, and whether there should be an order for the defendant's costs of the proceedings. The court needed to consider the principles governing costs in litigation, particularly when one party is self-represented and the other is legally represented. The court also had to assess the fairness and proportionality of the costs sought by Romascu in relation to the nature and complexity of the proceedings.

In its reasoning, the court acknowledged that Romascu, despite being self-represented, was successful in their claim against Manolache. The court recognised the potential disparity in legal resources between a self-represented litigant and a legally represented party. The court considered the principles of fairness and proportionality in awarding costs, noting that the amount of costs should reflect the work reasonably undertaken and the complexity of the case. The court determined that while Romascu was entitled to some costs, the amount sought was excessive given the nature of the proceedings. Consequently, the court ordered that a portion of Romascu's costs be paid by Manolache, but not the full amount requested. The court also ruled that there should be no order for the defendant's costs of the proceedings, finding that Manolache's conduct did not warrant such an order.