Wood v Adelaide Resource Recovery Pty Ltd (No 2)

In *Wood v Adelaide Resource Recovery Pty Ltd (No 2)*, the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia considered an appeal concerning the award of costs following a successful application by the appellant, Ms Wood, for an interlocutory injunction. The respondent, Adelaide Resource Recovery Pty Ltd, had opposed the application.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the primary judge had erred in ordering that Ms Wood pay the costs of the interlocutory injunction application, despite her success in obtaining the injunction. The court was required to determine the proper application of the "costs follow the event" rule in circumstances where a party achieves partial success on an interlocutory application, and whether the primary judge had adequately considered all relevant factors in exercising their discretion regarding costs.

The Full Court reasoned that the general rule that costs follow the event should ordinarily apply to interlocutory applications, meaning the successful party should generally be awarded their costs. However, the court acknowledged that a judge retains a broad discretion to depart from this rule where justice requires, taking into account all circumstances of the case. In this instance, the Full Court found that the primary judge had failed to provide sufficient reasons for departing from the usual rule and had not adequately explained why Ms Wood, who had successfully obtained the injunction she sought, should bear the costs of that application. The court concluded that the primary judge's decision on costs was therefore an error of law.

Consequently, the Full Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the primary judge regarding costs. The Full Court ordered that the costs of the interlocutory injunction application be costs in the cause of the substantive proceeding.