William McCausland v Surfing Hardware International Holdings Pty Ltd ACN 090 252 752 (No. 3)

The plaintiff, William McCausland, sued Surfing Hardware International Holdings Pty Ltd in the Federal Court of Australia. The case involved a dispute over intellectual property rights and contractual obligations. McCausland claimed that Surfing Hardware had infringed on his trademarks and breached agreements related to the distribution of surfboards. The defendants denied the allegations and counterclaimed for damages.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the costs orders in the current proceedings should cover the proceedings from the former Industrial Relations Commission (IRC), the appropriate method for calculating interest on costs in protracted litigation, and whether there was a basis for reallocating costs due to mixed success against multiple defendants. The court needed to determine if the general rule that costs follow the event should be modified in light of the plaintiffs' application for an adjournment of the IRC proceedings, which resulted in certain costs being disregarded.

The court found that the costs orders of the current proceedings should not cover the IRC proceedings because they were cross-vested and distinct. The plaintiffs' application for an adjournment caused certain costs to be thrown away, and the court ruled that this did not justify a reallocation of costs, as there was no mixed success against multiple defendants. Regarding interest on costs, the court clarified that the usual order is for the plaintiff to be entitled to interest on the proportion of its costs allowed, calculated from the day the underlying costs were paid. The court noted that the protracted nature of the litigation was due to the complexity of the case and the need for thorough examination of the evidence, rather than any fault of the plaintiff. The court made orders accordingly, including the calculation of interest on costs and the denial of costs reallocation.