Background
On 23 October 2026, the Court dismissed Luke Samuel Tannock’s application in proceedings against Metro Finance Pty Limited: Tannock v Metro Finance Pty Limited [2026] NSWSC 1305. The Court directed the parties to confer about appropriate consequential orders and, if they disagreed, to file proposed orders and submissions within 14 days.
Metro subsequently proposed costs orders by email. Mr Tannock did not respond, including after a further direction requiring him to state his position by 4:00 pm on 27 October 2026.
The Court’s Holding
Schmidt AJ ordered Mr Tannock to pay Metro’s costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis, as agreed or assessed.
The Court held that, in light of the dismissal of Mr Tannock’s application and his lack of opposition to Metro’s proposed costs order, the order fairly reflected the outcome. The usual rule that costs follow the event applied under r 42.1 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).
Key Takeaways
- Following dismissal of the plaintiff’s application, the defendant obtained its ordinary costs of the proceedings.
- The Court applied the ordinary rule that costs follow the event.
- A party’s failure to respond to proposed consequential orders may permit the Court to determine costs on the material before it.
Why It Matters
This is a straightforward application of the ordinary costs principle after the substantive application had been dismissed. It also illustrates the practical consequence of not responding to directions about consequential orders: the Court may treat an unopposed costs proposal as appropriate where it accords with the result.