Watson v Kriticos (Costs of Summary Judgment Application)

In the case of Watson v Kriticos, the Applicant, Mr Watson, sought costs following a summary judgment application and a strike-out application. The First Respondent, Mr Kriticos, was partially successful in his strike-out application, leading to the Applicant's application for indemnity costs under the Federal Court Rules 2011. The Applicant argued that the First Respondent's submissions demonstrated a misunderstanding of the nature of a summary judgment application, and that the First Respondent's success in the strike-out application justified an indemnity costs order. The court was required to determine whether the First Respondent's success warranted indemnity costs and whether the First Respondent's submissions evidenced a misunderstanding of the summary judgment application process.

The court found that the First Respondent was partially successful in his strike-out application, and that it was appropriate to treat the summary judgment application separately. The court also found that the First Respondent's submissions demonstrated a misunderstanding of the nature of a summary judgment application, and that the issues raised in the summary judgment application were complex and required a close reading of the material and testimony. The court concluded that it was just to order the First Respondent to pay the Applicant's costs on an indemnity basis, reduced by 10% following assessment.

The court further ordered that the First Respondent pay the Applicant's costs of the interlocutory application filed on 1 July 2021 as taxed, assessed or agreed. The court noted that entry of orders was dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. This decision highlights the importance of understanding the nature of a summary judgment application and the consequences of misunderstanding the process. It also demonstrates the court's willingness to order indemnity costs where appropriate.