Background
In the principal judgment, TLAS obtained a refund of $586,080 for an automated cone truck, interest, and storage-cost compensation after succeeding on a contractual warranty claim. The Court otherwise dismissed the proceeding. The parties subsequently agreed on most consequential orders but disputed costs.
TLAS sought its costs on the basis that it had obtained the principal monetary relief. Arrowes argued that each side should bear its own costs, or that TLAS should receive no more than 15%, because TLAS had failed on its misleading or deceptive conduct claim, abandoned Australian Consumer Law and lost-profits claims, failed in its contention that the sale agreement was void from the outset, and succeeded on only one of eight damages heads.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Hespe ordered Arrowes to pay 50% of TLAS’s costs, excluding the costs of preparing an affidavit that was filed but not read. The costs are to be taxed if not agreed, and TLAS’s recoverable costs are to be set off against Arrowes’ costs of a July 2025 interlocutory application that TLAS had previously been ordered to pay.
Although the usual rule is that costs follow the event, the Court held that TLAS had achieved only partial success. It had abandoned some claims, failed to establish that the sale agreement was void, and failed on a misleading or deceptive conduct claim that involved expert evidence and consumed a material part of the hearing. Applying a broad-brush assessment, the Court treated a 50% costs order as appropriate recognition of TLAS’s success on the contractual warranty claim.
Key Takeaways
- Overall success does not necessarily entitle a party to all of its costs.
- Failed and abandoned claims, particularly those consuming substantial hearing time and expert evidence, can justify a substantial costs reduction.
- The Court may use a broad-brush percentage assessment and set off costs orders between the parties.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the Federal Court’s practical approach to costs where a claimant secures meaningful relief but pursues unsuccessful or abandoned claims that materially increase the expense of litigation. Parties should evaluate whether ancillary claims and expert evidence are proportionate to the relief realistically available.