Background
Christina Galinovic sought an urgent interlocutory injunction to prevent Singtel Optus from terminating her telecommunications services. The Federal Court dismissed that application with costs in May 2025. Galinovic then attempted to satisfy the costs order using promissory notes, which Optus rejected. In June 2025, Optus filed an application to vary the original costs order to require payment by electronic funds transfer (EFT) instead. Galinovic sought an oral hearing of that variation application.
The dispute centered on whether Galinovic’s promissory note with a 72-hour deemed-acceptance clause constituted valid payment. The court had previously found the promissory note invalid in an earlier decision. Galinovic raised arguments about the respondents’ conduct in retaining the promissory note despite denying its validity, and alleged this conduct was dishonest and should affect the costs determination.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Meagher allowed the respondents’ application for a lump sum costs order fixed at $22,319.00, comprising $22,000 in solicitor fees and $319.90 in transcription disbursements. The court rejected Galinovic’s arguments that the costs were excessive due to overlapping work by multiple fee earners, that the promissory note issue affected the costs analysis, or that the respondents’ conduct warranted a reduction.
The court found the matter was “relatively simple” despite involving 67.9 hours of solicitor time over two months, as the issues were narrow and proceedings involved only short affidavits and submissions, with an oral hearing lasting 46 minutes. Lump sum costs were appropriate because: (1) the matter was relatively simple; (2) fixing costs would avoid expensive taxation; and (3) the costs claimed were reasonable and proportionate. The court ordered payment by EFT to prevent disputes over satisfaction, consistent with the Federal Court of Australia Act s 37M.
Key Takeaways
- Lump sum costs orders are appropriate for interlocutory applications with narrow issues, even if the underlying matter involves significant hours worked, provided the work is reasonably efficient.
- Courts will not undertake detailed cost-item examination in lump sum awards but will consider reasonableness, proportionality, and whether discounts from standard rates were applied.
- Where a litigant has made repeated invalid payment attempts (here, promissory notes), courts may require payment by specified electronic means to avoid ongoing disputes.
- A litigant in person’s misguided legal arguments do not excuse payment of the usual costs order, particularly where the issues have been authoritatively decided in prior judgments.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the Federal Court’s approach to fixing costs in lump sum, particularly in interlocutory applications. It demonstrates that courts will not impose arbitrary discounts on reasonably incurred costs simply because a solicitor offers a discount from standard rates, and that “relative simplicity” is assessed by reference to the nature of the legal issues, not hours worked. The judgment also shows courts’ willingness to require specific payment methods (EFT) where parties have demonstrated they will dispute payment validity through creative but legally invalid instruments.
For practitioners, the decision reinforces that costs follow the event in interlocutory applications as a general rule, and that procedural arguments about litigants in person status do not excuse unsuccessful respondents from paying costs when the two applications were heard concurrently and the substantive application succeeded.