The Court held that indemnity costs were warranted from the commencement of the hearing where the applicant in defamation proceedings gave false evidence on matters central to the case, raised baseless concoction theories later abandoned, challenged underlying facts he knew or ought to have known were true, and accused respondents' witnesses of dishonesty without foundation — the combination of these features constituted the special or unusual circumstances required. The Court ordered lump sum costs assessment consistent with the Costs Practice Note preference, holding that the significant quantum of costs and length of trial favoured rather than weighed against such an order. A stay of the costs order was granted given the proximity of the appeal hearing, notwithstanding the respondents' prejudice from inability to earn interest on unquantified costs under s 52(1) of the FCA Act.
The full text is available to signed-in members.