Soulos v Pagones; Soulos v Soulos; Soulos v Soulos; Soulos v Pagones; Kristallis v Soulos; Kristallis v Soulos; Kristallis v Pagones (No 2)

These proceedings involved appeals and cross-appeals concerning various disputes between the Soulos family members and Mr. Pagones, and between Mr. Kristallis and the Soulos family members. The core of the dispute revolved around the ownership and distribution of assets, including shares in a company, and the proper assessment of costs orders made in the primary proceedings. The appeals were heard by Ward P, Meagher and Mitchelmore JJA in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the costs orders made by the primary judge should be amended, particularly in light of the fact that the appeals and cross-appeals had achieved a mixed success. The court was required to consider the general rule that costs follow the event and determine if the specific circumstances of the appeals warranted a departure from this principle, thereby justifying an alteration of the costs orders already determined at first instance.

The Court of Appeal ultimately determined that no amendment to the costs orders already made was warranted. Their Honours applied the well-established principle that costs generally follow the event, and in this instance, the mixed success on appeal did not provide a sufficient basis to disturb the discretion exercised by the primary judge in making the original costs orders. The court found that the existing costs orders adequately reflected the overall outcome of the litigation.