Treton Pty Ltd v HM Australia Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2)

The case of Treton Pty Ltd v HM Australia Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) involved the plaintiff, Treton Pty Ltd, pursuing specific performance and damages against the first defendant, HM Australia Holdings Pty Ltd. The plaintiff also brought claims against a second defendant, which were subsequently dismissed. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate allocation of costs in light of the varying outcomes for the two defendants. Additionally, the second defendant sought to amend the judgment to limit the dismissal of its claims to certain paragraphs.

The court examined whether the costs should adhere to the general principle that they follow the event, and if the first defendant's conduct warranted any financial liability for the second defendant's costs. It also considered whether the second defendant's application to vary the judgment under rule 667 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) was appropriate given that the claim against it was dismissed in full.

The court held that the costs should follow the event, meaning the first defendant was to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings. However, no order was made regarding the costs for the claim against the second defendant. Furthermore, the court denied the second defendant's application to vary the judgment, maintaining the dismissal of its claims in full. The court found that the joinder of the second defendant was reasonable and that there was no basis to alter the judgment as sought.