Senses Northbridge Pty Ltd v Sahab Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2)

In the case of Senses Northbridge Pty Ltd v Sahab Holdings Pty Ltd, the dispute involved the quantification of costs following an unsuccessful claim by the plaintiff, Senses Northbridge, which had sought to incorporate a conventional estoppel claim into its pleadings. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The plaintiff, Senses Northbridge, originally brought proceedings against the defendant, Sahab Holdings, for breach of contract, seeking damages and specific performance. The plaintiff subsequently amended its pleadings to include a claim for conventional estoppel, which was ultimately unsuccessful.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the costs incurred by the defendant following the amendment of the plaintiff's pleadings, specifically in relation to the unsuccessful conventional estoppel claim, should be excluded from the costs that the defendant was entitled to recover under the ordinary basis of quantification. The court needed to determine the appropriate basis for quantifying the costs, weighing the ordinary basis against the indemnity basis.

The court held that the costs incurred following the amendment to the plaintiff's pleadings should not be excluded from the ordinary basis of quantification. The court reasoned that the unsuccessful conventional estoppel claim was a significant part of the proceedings, and the costs incurred in responding to that claim were directly related to the litigation process. The court emphasised that the ordinary basis of quantification should be applied fairly and reasonably, taking into account the overall context and the nature of the costs incurred. Consequently, the court ordered that the defendant's costs should be quantified on the ordinary basis, including those costs incurred in relation to the unsuccessful conventional estoppel claim.