Zreika v Royal (No 2)

The case of Zreika v Royal (No 2) involved multiple parties, including Mr Zreika, Mr Stojanovski, Mr Nazloomian, and Mr Mahmoud El Ali, who appealed against various judgments rendered in prior proceedings. The appeals were against decisions made in the Federal Court, including the Principal Decision, Orders Decision, Costs Decision, and Deed Decision. The appeals were primarily concerned with the outcomes of these judgments and their associated costs. The case was heard by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, which ultimately dismissed the appeals with the exception of partial success by Mr Zreika.

The legal issues before the court involved the determination of costs associated with the appeals. Specifically, the court had to decide whether to make lump sum costs orders in favour of the respondents, namely the Royals and Mr Jones, and if so, how to apportion the liability for these costs among the appellants. The overarching principle guiding the court's decision was the objective in sections 37M and 37N of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) to ensure just, quick, and cheap resolution of the real issues in the proceedings.

The court reasoned that the overarching purpose of the legislation mandated a fair and efficient resolution of the litigation, including the costs associated with the appeals. The Full Court held that lump sum costs orders should be made in favour of the respondents. However, the court decided that the quantification of these costs should be determined by a single judge. Furthermore, the court apportioned the liability for the lump sum costs among the appellants by way of a percentage breakup, with each appellant responsible for a specified percentage of the total costs. The court's decision ensured that the costs followed the event and that the overarching purpose of the legislation was achieved.

The final orders of the court required the appellants to pay the respondents' costs of their appeals, with specific percentages assigned to each appellant for the lump sum costs. The quantification of these costs was to be determined jointly with the costs from related proceedings and was to be conducted by a single judge. The orders also referred the matter of the payment of moneys held in Court to Justice Farrell for further determination.