Stephens v Giovenco; Dick v Giovenco (No 2)

In the proceedings before Allsop P and Hodgson JA, the appeals concerned a verdict of $350,000 awarded against two defendants, Ms Giovenco and Mr Dick. The appeal court had previously set aside the verdict against Mr Dick entirely and reduced the verdict against Ms Giovenco to $70,000. The primary dispute revolved around the appropriate orders for costs, including whether provisions of the *Legal Profession Act 2004* should be excluded and whether a *Bullock* or *Sanderson* order was warranted.

The court was required to determine the appropriate allocation of costs between the parties, considering the significantly altered outcome of the appeals compared to the original verdict. This involved assessing the extent to which each party should bear their own costs and the costs of other parties, particularly in light of the partial success and partial failure of the appeals and the existence of cross-claims between the defendants.

The court's reasoning focused on achieving a just and equitable distribution of costs, reflecting the outcome of the appeals. The orders made indicate a departure from a simple order for costs in favour of the successful party, instead apportioning costs based on the specific successes and failures of each party in the appeals and the original proceedings. This approach aimed to ensure that parties were not unduly burdened by costs arising from issues where they were successful or where their liability was significantly reduced.

The final orders detailed a complex allocation of costs. Ms Giovenco was ordered to pay Mr Stephens' costs of the proceedings below and his appeal costs, with a reduction to reflect Mr Dick's liability for one-third of those costs and his own costs in relation to Mr Stephens' appeal. Mr Dick was ordered to pay Ms Giovenco's costs of the proceedings below, with an exclusion for costs solely attributable to her proceedings against Mr Stephens. Mr Dick was also ordered to pay one-third of Ms Giovenco's appeal costs and his own appeal costs, and to reimburse Mr Stephens for any costs solely attributable to Mr Dick's appeal. Both Mr Stephens and Mr Dick were ordered to bear their own incremental costs for the cross-claims between them.