Background
The applicants’ substantive claim had been dismissed after they failed to provide security for costs, as required by an earlier order. In True EV Distribution Pty Ltd v Shenzhen Xiaopeng Motors Supply Chain Management Co Ltd (No 4) [2026] FCA 1200, the Court also set a timetable to determine the amount of a lump-sum costs order in the respondents’ favour.
The respondents filed evidence and submissions seeking $202,372.46. Their solicitor, Peter Cash, supplied a detailed costs summary covering work performed after 30 March 2026, including preparation for a proposed three-week hearing, discovery, pleadings work, and hearings concerning the applicants’ delay or failure to provide security. The figure did not include a separate $341,567.19 lump-sum costs order made on 30 April 2026. The applicants filed no evidence or submissions on quantum and stated that they did not intend to do so.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Jackman accepted the respondents’ proposed quantification and ordered the applicants to pay lump-sum costs of $202,372.46. The Court held that the respondents’ costs evidence complied with the Costs Practice Note and was sufficiently reliable despite not having been prepared with a costs consultant, given Mr Cash’s 40 years’ predominantly commercial-litigation experience.
The Court found the scope of work reasonable and proportionate to the proceeding. It noted five hearings since 30 March 2026, four involving the applicants’ delay or failure to pay security, as well as the respondents’ necessary preparation for the scheduled trial. A further 10% discount to solicitors’ scale costs, excluding disbursements, was appropriate, and the resulting sum broadly reflected what would likely have been allowed on a formal party-party assessment.
Key Takeaways
- A detailed costs summary complying with the Costs Practice Note can support a lump-sum order without evidence from a costs consultant.
- The Court assessed proportionality by reference to the work actually required by the litigation, including aborted trial preparation and security-for-costs disputes.
- A party that does not contest a supported costs claim risks the Court accepting the other side’s proposed quantification.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the Federal Court’s practical approach to fixing lump-sum costs after a claim is dismissed for failure to provide security. It confirms that experienced solicitors’ evidence, organised by work category, personnel, rates, hours and disbursements, may be enough to establish a reasonable estimate of recoverable party-party costs.
It also underscores that costs incurred in responding to procedural default and preparing for a trial that does not proceed may remain recoverable where the work was reasonably required at the time.