Ventura v Higgins (No. 2)

In Ventura v Higgins (No. 2), the dispute involved the allocation of costs following the transfer of proceedings from the District Court of New South Wales to the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs, Ventura, sought indemnity costs and a gross sum costs order. The defendants, Higgins, opposed these applications and argued that the plaintiffs were not entitled to such costs. The central issue before the court was whether the plaintiffs were entitled to indemnity costs and a gross sum costs order under the relevant legal principles.

The court considered the principles governing costs in litigation, particularly in relation to indemnity costs and the Chorley principle. It examined whether a solicitor acting for himself and a corporation, of which he was a sole director, was entitled to seek his legal costs under this principle. The court also assessed whether, if such costs were payable, the plaintiffs were entitled to a gross sum costs order. The court found that the defendants were to pay the plaintiffs' costs on the ordinary basis, but declined to make an order for indemnity costs or a gross sum costs order.

The court's reasoning was grounded in the application of established legal principles and the specific circumstances of the case. It concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled to their costs, but not on the indemnity basis or in the form of a gross sum order. The court also refused the plaintiffs' application to revoke a previous order made by Ashford DCJ. The final orders mandated that the defendants pay the plaintiffs' costs of the proceedings, but these costs were to be assessed on the ordinary basis and not as indemnity costs or a gross sum order.