here - Gordon & Jackson

26. An interesting aspect of applications for security for costs is that in the
majority of cases, where costs are awarded they are rarely the quantum
applied for by the defendant. In Colmax 30 His Honour Derham AsJ, noted
Mukhtar AsJ’s comments in Mark-Sensing Shanghai Paper Products Co Ltd
v Baldock that Courts undertake a “conventional” reduction. In Colmax the
amount claimed was reduced to cover the period of costs ordered to
commence from the date of the application for security up to and including
the first day of trial. This amount was then further discounted by 1/3. The
application had estimated costs between $150,000 - $245,000. The Court
took the lower figure of $150,000, reduced it to $75,000 then reduced it
again by 1/3 to $50,000. As a rule of thumb, somewhere between 1/3 and
¼ of the costs claimed are ordered. I have included a table of some cases
to demonstrate this:
CASE
AMOUNT
SOUGHT
AMOUNT
ORDERED
Interwest Ltd v Tricontinental Corp Ltd
(1991) 5 ACSR 621, Ormiston J.
Logue v Hansen Technologies Ltd [2003]
FCA 81 Weinberg J
MLW Technology Pty Ltd v May; May v
MLW Technology Pty Ltd [2003] VSC 24
$1,039M $50,000
$311,762.50 $100,000.
$87,450 $44,000
Byrne J
Saint-Gobain RF pty ltd v MAAX SPA
Corp Pty Ltd [2004] VSC 335
Habersberger J
$734,013.57
or $110,000
$35,000
Mt Holden Estates Pty Ltd v Lanigan
Baldwin Pty Ltd [2005] VCAT 1442
$65,000 $48,000
(2/3’s)
Senior Member D Cremean
Mt Holden already owed Lanigan some
$400,000 in costs orders.
30 Ibid at 15
8