Treasury Wine Estates Limited v Maurice Blackburn Pty Ltd (No 2)

Treasury Wine Estates Limited (TWE) was the appellant in this case before the High Court, with Maurice Blackburn Pty Ltd (MB) and Mr Napier being the first and second respondents, respectively. The dispute pertained to costs orders in relation to an appeal, where TWE sought to limit the costs it would have to pay to the respondents to one set, MB and Mr Napier sought indemnity costs, and TWE sought to limit the costs recoverable by MB and Mr Napier to their counsel's costs. The High Court was tasked with resolving these applications and determining the appropriate costs orders.

The central legal issues the Court had to decide were whether TWE should only pay a single set of costs despite the respondents having separate legal representation, whether MB and Mr Napier's rejection of offers of compromise was unreasonable, and if MB and Mr Napier were entitled to recover their solicitor's costs when MB acted for them on appeal. The Court had to weigh these issues in light of the possibility of conflict between the respondents and the nature of the submissions made on appeal.

The Court held that the application by TWE to limit the costs it had to pay to a single set was dismissed, while the application by MB and Mr Napier for indemnity costs was also dismissed. However, the Court granted TWE's application to limit the costs recoverable by MB and Mr Napier to their counsel's costs. The Court reasoned that while MB acted for Mr Napier on appeal, MB was not entitled to recover costs for acting for themselves, and identical submissions were made on behalf of both respondents. The Court concluded that the costs recoverable by MB and Mr Napier should be limited to the costs of their counsel, and the appropriate orders were made accordingly.

In summary, the Court dismissed TWE's application to limit its costs to a single set, dismissed MB and Mr Napier's application for indemnity costs, and granted TWE's application to limit the costs recoverable by MB and Mr Napier to their counsel's costs. The Court varied the costs order to reflect these findings and made orders for the payment of costs in accordance with the respective applications.