ZILLER & FOSTER

In *Ziller & Foster*, the Supreme Court of Queensland was asked to determine whether a party who had been granted an interlocutory injunction restraining the other party from dealing with certain assets was entitled to an order for the costs of the interlocutory application. The dispute arose in the context of ongoing litigation between the parties concerning alleged breaches of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the successful party on an interlocutory application, who had obtained an injunction, should be awarded costs in circumstances where the injunction was granted on terms that were not entirely favourable to them. Specifically, the Court had to consider the principles governing the award of costs in interlocutory proceedings and how those principles applied when an injunction was granted, but not in the precise form sought by the applicant.

Tree J reasoned that while the applicant had been successful in obtaining the interlocutory injunction, the order was made on terms that reflected a compromise between the parties' respective positions. The Court noted that the general rule in interlocutory matters is that costs follow the event, but this rule is not absolute and can be departed from where the circumstances warrant. In this instance, the Court found that the applicant had not been wholly successful and that the respondent had also achieved some of its objectives in the interlocutory proceedings. Consequently, Tree J ordered that the costs of the interlocutory application be reserved, to be determined at the final hearing of the substantive proceedings.