Viscariello v Macks (No 4)

Viscariello and Macks are parties to a legal dispute that has spanned over a decade, and both have filed applications related to the taxation of costs awarded in their favour. Viscariello sought further particulars of Macks’ costs claim, while Macks sought a lump sum assessment of both parties’ costs. The legal issues the court needed to resolve included the appropriateness of ordering particulars of a costs claim before inspection and production and the pre-taxation conference, the circumstances in which a lump sum assessment of costs is appropriate, and the application of the concept of proportionality in the taxation of costs. The court found that it was generally inappropriate to order particulars of a costs claim before inspection and production and the pre-taxation conference. The court also declined to assess Macks’ costs on a lump sum basis due to the large number of "big ticket" and controversial objections to the claim and the intermingling of such items with other parts of the claim. However, the court agreed to tax those items in the normal manner and will consider a lump sum assessment of the balance of the claim thereafter. The court further declined to require Macks to elect on whether to pursue his withdrawn application or to issue a fresh application at that time.

The court's reasoning was based on the concept of proportionality, which is relevant in the taxation of costs. The court noted that the concept of proportionality is relevant in various parts of the Uniform Civil Rules and that it must be considered in the taxation of costs. The court also noted that the form of interlocutory applications must comply with the relevant rules and forms. The court found that it was not appropriate to order particulars of a costs claim before inspection and production and the pre-taxation conference because it would not be proportionate to do so. The court also found that it was not appropriate to assess Macks’ costs on a lump sum basis due to the large number of "big ticket" and controversial objections to the claim and the intermingling of such items with other parts of the claim. The court further declined to require Macks to elect on whether to pursue his withdrawn application or to issue a fresh application at that time.

The final orders of the court were that the applications of Viscariello for further particulars of Macks’ claim and associated orders were premature and were declined at the present time. The court further declined to require Macks to now elect as to further pursuing his withdrawn application or to require him to issue a fresh application at that time. A further directions hearing was fixed for 5 April 2022 at 2:30pm but the parties have liberty to apply as to that date.