Veesaunt Property Syndicate 1 Pty Ltd v Alliance Building and Construction Pty Ltd (No 2)

In the matter of Veesaunt Property Syndicate 1 Pty Ltd v Alliance Building and Construction Pty Ltd, the dispute arose from a contract concerning the construction of residential townhouses. The applicant sought various declarations and, while successful overall, did not win on all points raised. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate allocation of costs following the applicant's partial success.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether an order for costs should be made in favour of the applicant, despite the respondent’s failure to submit any costs submissions. The court considered the principle that costs generally follow the event, meaning that the successful party in a proceeding is usually entitled to an order for costs against the unsuccessful party. However, the court also had to exercise its discretion to ensure that the costs order was fair and just, taking into account the nature of the applicant's success and the absence of submissions from the respondent.

The court noted that while the applicant was successful in its main claims, it had not achieved complete victory. The court observed that the absence of submissions from the respondent did not preclude it from making a costs order. The court emphasised that the respondent's silence did not absolve it of the responsibility to contribute to the costs of the proceedings. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to order the respondent to pay the applicant’s costs on the standard basis, to be agreed or assessed.

The court's final order was that the respondent pay the applicant's costs on the standard basis, to be agreed or assessed. This decision highlights the court's role in balancing the principle that costs follow the event with the need to exercise discretion fairly, especially when one party fails to engage in the costs process.