Stankovic v State of NSW (No 2)

The case of Stankovic v State of NSW (No 2) involved the plaintiff, who had his proceedings summarily dismissed. The primary issue before the court was whether it was appropriate to make a lump sum costs order, considering the plaintiff's financial circumstances. The plaintiff claimed to be impecunious, which prompted the court to consider whether a discount should apply to the costs order. The court had to balance the need for the defendant to recover costs against the plaintiff's financial situation.

The court examined the principle that costs should follow the event, but also recognised the potential hardship a lump sum costs order could impose on an impecunious plaintiff. The court considered the plaintiff's assertion of financial hardship, which was supported by evidence of his limited means. The court held that it was appropriate to make a lump sum costs order in this case, but with a discount applied to account for the plaintiff's impecuniosity. The court concluded that the defendant was entitled to a significant portion of its costs, but this amount was reduced to reflect the plaintiff's financial circumstances.

The court ultimately made a lump sum costs order, applying a discount to account for the plaintiff's impecuniosity. The order was for a reduced amount that was considered fair and reasonable given the plaintiff's financial situation. The court emphasised that while the principle of costs following the event was important, it must be balanced with considerations of equity and fairness. The court’s decision ensured that the defendant could recover a substantial portion of its costs, while also providing relief to the plaintiff who was unable to pay the full amount.