Stefanovski v Digital Central Australia (Assets) Pty Ltd (No 2)

In the case of Stefanovski v Digital Central Australia (Assets) Pty Ltd (No 2), the appellants were engaged in a legal dispute with the respondent concerning various interlocutory applications and the subsequent appeal. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining the appropriate costs allocation between the parties, given the appellants' partial success on appeal and the narrowing of injunctions initially awarded.

The central legal issues revolved around the allocation of costs in relation to the interlocutory applications and the subsequent appeal. The court had to consider the principle of the costs following the event, where the party that succeeds on the merits of the case should generally be awarded costs. However, the court also needed to account for the appellants' partial success on appeal and the changes in the scope of the injunctions.

In reaching its decision, the court meticulously reviewed the nature of the interlocutory applications and the outcomes of the appeal. The court found that the appellants were partially successful on appeal, which justified an award of costs in their favour. However, the narrowing of the injunctions on appeal meant that the respondent's position had been strengthened, warranting an adjustment in the costs allocation. The court ultimately determined that the appellants should bear 20% of the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the action, while the costs of the interlocutory applications and the hearing before Logan J were to be borne by each party. Additionally, the respondent was ordered to pay two thirds of the appellants’ costs of and incidental to the appeal.

The final orders included the appellants paying the respondent $2,475 as pre-judgment interest, 80% of the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the action, and two thirds of the appellants’ costs of and incidental to the appeal. Each party was also responsible for their own costs in relation to specific interlocutory applications and the hearing before Logan J.