SFP Events Pty Ltd v Little Swamp II, Inc (No 2)

In the case of SFP Events Pty Ltd v Little Swamp II, Inc (No 2), the dispute centred around the costs incurred during the interlocutory applications filed on 18 April 2024. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary issue before the court was whether the general rule that costs follow the event should apply, given the respondents’ success in their application for a stay, and whether there should be a proportionate reduction in costs to reflect the mixed success of the parties. Additionally, the court considered whether each respondent should have been represented by the same counsel.

The court examined the submissions provided by both parties regarding the allocation of costs. The applicants, SFP, argued that there should be a proportionate reduction in the costs awarded to the respondents to reflect their mixed success. SFP also contended that each respondent ought to have been represented by the same counsel, which would have potentially reduced the overall costs. The respondents, on the other hand, did not oppose the general rule applying, but rather sought full costs of the interlocutory applications.

In determining the matter, the court recognised that the general rule of costs following the event should apply, given the respondents’ success in their application for a stay. However, the court also considered the applicants' argument regarding a proportionate reduction. After careful consideration, the court found that the mixed success of the parties did not warrant a deviation from the general rule. Moreover, the court ruled that the respondents were entitled to full costs of the interlocutory applications on the standard basis.

The final orders of the court were that SFP Events Pty Ltd pay the respondents’ costs of the interlocutory applications filed on 18 April 2024 on the standard basis. The court did not order that each respondent should have been represented by the same counsel, and thus, the issue of differing representation was not further addressed in the costs order.