Vehicle Monitoring Systems Pty Limited v SARB Management Group Pty Ltd trading as Database Consultants Australia (No 11)

Vehicle Monitoring Systems Pty Limited, the applicant, brought proceedings against SARB Management Group Pty Ltd trading as Database Consultants Australia, the first respondent. The dispute arose from allegations of breaches of contract, fiduciary duty, and misuse of confidential information. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The court was required to determine the appropriate allocation of costs in light of the Full Court's decision to remit the question of costs to the trial judge. Specifically, the court needed to decide whether the existing costs orders should be varied, whether the respondents' Calderbank offers were sufficiently clear and reasonable, and if the costs should be paid on an indemnity basis. The court also considered whether costs should be awarded against a third party, Balance REV Ltd, the litigation funder.

The court found that the existing costs orders should be varied. The Full Court's decision allowed the appeal on limited grounds, and the respondents had made offers in accordance with the Calderbank principles. The court held that the applicant's rejection of these offers was unreasonable in the circumstances, and the result at trial was equal to or better than the offers. The court also concluded that Balance REV Ltd should be jointly and severally liable for the costs ordered to be paid by the applicant. The court outlined the specific costs to be borne by each party and set out a detailed timetable for the submission of costs summaries and responses. Ultimately, the court ordered that the quantum of the lump sum for costs be determined by a Registrar of the Court.

The court made several orders to reflect the new allocation of costs. These included setting aside the previous costs orders, establishing joint and several liability for certain costs between the applicant and Balance REV Ltd, and directing that specific costs be paid on an indemnity basis. The court also set deadlines for the filing and serving of costs summaries and responses, and mandated that the quantum of the costs be determined by a Registrar of the Court. This decision ensures that the costs are fairly allocated in accordance with the court's findings and the principles of the Calderbank offer.