The Court held that a taxing officer's broad discretion under s 114(2)(b) of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA) to award interest on costs permits consideration of costs offers as disentitling factors, even where the offers may not strictly comply with the rules regime governing costs (as distinct from interest on costs). Where a costs recipient fails to accept adequate offers on discrete components of a costs claim (here, solicitors' fees and disbursements), the consequent prolongation of the taxation process is a relevant disentitling factor that substantially reduces the interest award, because the claimant was kept out of its money in part due to its own failure to resolve components that could have been settled. The Court assessed Stage 2 interest as a lump sum of $225,000, significantly below Clone's claim of over $700,000, reflecting the adequacy of two of three offers and Clone's inadequate record keeping as further disentitling conduct.
The full text is available to signed-in members.