Objectors are again reminded that although they can be expect to be reimbursed for their standard costs for participating in a section 84 application (that is, reasonable costs, reasonably incurred), that expectation does not amount to an entitlement.

In 210 Hawthorn Road Pty Ltd v Megan Ellinson and Ors S ECI 2022 05081, Ierodiaconou AsJ took the unusual step of ordering indemnity costs against a defendant for persisting with an application for costs of no merit:

“I will allow the plaintiff’s application for indemnity costs in respect of the costs dispute.  As the reasons above disclose, there was no proper basis in fact or law for Dr Shafer’s application to recover the costs of Mr Shafer’s invoices.  I accept the plaintiff’s submission that it was a frivolous application.  It was a poor use of time. It falls into the category of cases that is continued in wilful disregard of known facts or clearly established law, and warrants an order for indemnity costs: see Ugly Tribe Co Pty Ltd v Sikola [2001] VSC 189 at 7.”

In other cases:

a) an order for costs was made against the defendants in Rouditser & Rouditser v Schreuder & Schreuder S ECI 2018 01166 after the defendants were found by Derham AsJ to have been responsible for the trial being adjourned;

b) an order for costs was made against the defendants in Livingstone v Kelleher & Pomponio S ECI 2020 0460 after Matthews AsJ found the first defendant had put the court and the parties to unwarranted expense in necessitating an additional directions hearing; and

c) an order for costs was made against the defendants in Sijercic & Sijercic v Brotchie & Bennett S ECI 2021 03620 after Matthews AsJ concluded the defendant had not made sufficient effort to cooperate in the settling of pre-trial directions.