Vero Insurance Ltd v Australian Prestressing Services Pty Ltd (No 2)

Vero Insurance Ltd (appellant) and Australian Prestressing Services Pty Ltd (respondent) were parties to an appeal before the New South Wales Court of Appeal, presided over by Beazley P, Meagher JA, and Simpson J. The dispute concerned the appropriate costs order to be made following the appeal, specifically whether the overall costs order should reflect the respective successes of the parties.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was how to allocate the costs of the appeal, given that neither party had achieved complete success. The Court was required to determine the extent to which the costs order should reflect the degree of success each party had on the substantive appeal.

The Court reasoned that a costs order should generally reflect the outcome of the litigation, meaning that the party who is more successful should recover a greater proportion of their costs. In this instance, while the respondent had achieved some success, the appellant had also been successful on certain aspects of the appeal. Consequently, the Court determined that a division of costs was appropriate, rather than a full indemnity for either party. The Court applied the principle that costs should be awarded on a basis that fairly reflects the overall outcome of the proceedings.

The Court ordered that the appellant pay 75 per cent of the respondent's costs of the appeal. This order specifically excluded the costs associated with the further submissions that were made solely on the question of costs.