Background
Following earlier costs orders made on 16 June 2026, the Federal Court set a timetable for evidence and short submissions on the amount of a lump-sum costs order in ASIC’s proceeding against BSF Solutions Pty Ltd, Cigno Australia Pty Ltd, Brenton Harrison and Mark Swanepoel.
ASIC sought $1,378,018 in lump-sum costs. Its claim was supported by an affidavit from an experienced costs consultant, Ms Scarlett. The amount represented an approximately 39% discount from ASIC’s total incurred and anticipated costs of $2,267,647.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Jackman ordered that the respondents’ liability under the earlier costs orders be fixed at $1,378,018. His Honour found Ms Scarlett’s analysis to be a logical, fair and reasonable estimate of ASIC’s entitlement.
Mr Harrison and Mr Swanepoel sought a further reduction of 10–20%, raising objections concerning the trial’s length, the number of fee earners, alleged duplication, counsel’s fees, printing and travel. The Court rejected those objections. They were unsupported by evidence and did not challenge the consultant’s expertise or general methodology. The evidence showed that the claimed amount already reflected appropriate discounts and that ASIC had not included travel costs in the lump-sum claim.
Key Takeaways
- A well-supported costs-consultant affidavit can justify a lump-sum costs order without a taxation.
- General objections to a costs estimate carry little weight when the objecting parties provide no supporting evidence.
- The Court accepted that preparation for multiple hearings and complex issues justified the counsel and solicitor costs claimed after discounting.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the Federal Court’s practical approach to fixing lump-sum costs where the successful party provides a reasoned, independently supported estimate with substantial discounts. Parties resisting such an order should put forward evidence and engage directly with the methodology, rather than rely on broad assertions of excess or duplication.