Wieland v Texxcon Pty Ltd; Nominexx v Wieland (No 2)

The parties involved in this case were Wieland, who was the plaintiff, and Texxcon Pty Ltd, who was the defendant. Nominexx was also involved as a third party. The dispute was related to a claim for gross costs under Rule 63.07 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court was required to decide whether the plaintiff was entitled to gross costs as opposed to net costs, as well as the appropriate amount of costs to be awarded. The plaintiff argued that the defendant's conduct during the proceedings was vexatious and oppressive, and therefore justified an award of gross costs. The defendant, on the other hand, argued that the plaintiff was not entitled to gross costs and that the amount of net costs should be reduced.

The court found that the plaintiff's claim for gross costs was well-founded, and that the defendant's conduct had been vexatious and oppressive. The court noted that the defendant had made numerous unfounded allegations against the plaintiff and had engaged in other improper conduct during the proceedings. The court also found that the amount of costs to be awarded should be higher than the usual net costs, but lower than the gross costs claimed by the plaintiff. The court ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs on an indemnity basis, but reduced the amount of costs to be awarded to reflect the defendant's conduct.

In summary, the court found in favour of the plaintiff and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs on an indemnity basis, but reduced the amount of costs to be awarded to reflect the defendant's conduct. The court also noted that the defendant's conduct during the proceedings was vexatious and oppressive, and justified an award of higher costs than usual.