Saad v State of NSW (No 4)

The case of Saad v State of NSW (No 4) involved the applicant, Saad, seeking a costs order under the general rule that costs follow the event. The dispute centred on whether the costs order should be paid as a specified gross sum under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005, rather than as a taxed bill of costs. The proceedings took place in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The court was tasked with determining whether there was sufficient evidence to suggest a substantive dispute regarding the specified gross sum, and whether such an order would align with the overriding purpose of section 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the absence of evidence indicating a substantive dispute over the specified gross sum justified the court in ordering costs as a specified gross sum. The court had to balance the need for a fair and efficient resolution of the costs dispute with the overarching objective of achieving justice in accordance with section 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005. The court's decision hinged on whether the general rule requiring costs to follow the event should be applied in a manner that would expedite the resolution of the costs dispute.

In its reasoning, the court found that there was no evidence before it to suggest a substantive dispute over the specified gross sum. Given this, the court determined that ordering the costs as a specified gross sum was consistent with the overriding purpose of section 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005, which aims to achieve justice. The court held that the absence of such evidence supported the expeditious resolution of the costs dispute, aligning with the court's objective to achieve justice in a fair and efficient manner. Consequently, the court ordered that the costs be paid as a specified gross sum, rather than proceeding with a taxed bill of costs.

The final orders of the court confirmed that the costs were to be paid as a specified gross sum, in accordance with the court's findings and reasoning. The decision underscored the importance of considering the overriding purpose of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 in resolving costs disputes, particularly in cases where there is no substantive dispute over the specified gross sum.