The Court held that under r 25.14(2) of the 2025 Rules, the mere fact that a successful party's costs exceed the scale amount does not alone constitute 'sufficient reason and it is in the interests of justice' to order costs above the scale. The Court indicated its inclination that an onus lies on the party seeking costs in excess of the scale amount to persuade the Court of sufficient reason, though this was not finally determined. Relevant factors include the complexity of the successful ground, the merits of unsuccessful grounds, and whether the case involved greater work than typical migration proceedings; the Court also noted that inadequate evidence in the costs affidavit (lacking details of hourly rates, fee earner identity, costs agreements, and counsel's time allocation) made it difficult to assess party/party costs and weighed against departure from the scale amount. The Court left open whether the statutory phrase involves one or two separate conditions.
The full text is available to signed-in members.