Roude v Helwani (No 2)

The case of Roude v Helwani (No 2) was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute between the parties involved a disagreement over indemnity costs. The plaintiff sought an order for indemnity costs, arguing that the defendant had acted unreasonably in pursuing a claim that lacked merit. The defendant contested the application, arguing that there was no point of principle involved that would warrant an order for indemnity costs.

The court was required to determine whether the defendant's conduct in pursuing the claim amounted to unreasonable behaviour that warranted an order for indemnity costs. The court considered the principles of indemnity costs and the circumstances of the case, including the merits of the claim and the conduct of the parties throughout the proceedings.

The court found that the defendant's conduct did not amount to unreasonable behaviour and that there was no point of principle involved that would warrant an order for indemnity costs. The court held that indemnity costs should only be awarded in cases where there is a clear abuse of process or where the conduct of a party is such that it warrants a punitive or deterrent order. The court found that the defendant's conduct did not meet this threshold and therefore dismissed the plaintiff's application for indemnity costs.

The court's decision in this case provides guidance to litigants and practitioners on the circumstances in which indemnity costs may be awarded. The court emphasised that indemnity costs are not to be awarded lightly and that there must be a clear point of principle involved. The court also noted that the principles of indemnity costs are not to be used as a tool for punishing parties who have acted unreasonably, but rather to deter future abuse of process.