Wentworth v Rogers (No 2)

Wentworth commenced proceedings against Rogers, claiming damages for breach of contract. Rogers, in turn, filed a cross-claim against Wentworth. The case was tried in 1985, resulting in a verdict in favour of Rogers on both claims. The trial judge ordered a new trial in 1987 for Wentworth's claim against Rogers, with the costs of the first trial to be determined based on the outcome of the new trial. The new trial resulted in a verdict for Wentworth on her claim, but Rogers did not pursue the cross-claim, which was subsequently dismissed. The central issue before the court was the determination of Wentworth's entitlement to the costs of the first trial.

The court considered the principle that a party is generally entitled to the costs of a trial if they are successful at the retrial, unless there are compelling reasons to depart from this rule. In this case, the court found that Wentworth was entitled to the costs of the first trial, as she was successful in the new trial of her claim against Rogers. The court also noted that the costs of the first trial should not be borne by Wentworth, as she was ultimately successful in her claim. The court further held that the dismissal of the cross-claim did not affect Wentworth's entitlement to the costs of the first trial, as the cross-claim was not pursued by Rogers.

The court concluded that Wentworth was entitled to the costs of the first trial, given her success in the new trial of her claim against Rogers. The court found that the principle of costs following the event applied in this case, and that there were no compelling reasons to depart from this rule. The court further held that the dismissal of the cross-claim did not affect Wentworth's entitlement to the costs of the first trial, as the cross-claim was not pursued by Rogers. The court ordered that Wentworth be entitled to the costs of the first trial.