Australia, Aug. 26 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on July 25:

1. In October 2024 I gave judgment for APC: APC v Mr B (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 1608. Costs were later dealt with in APC v Mr B (No 3) [2025] NSWSC 142, with Mr B being ordered to pay APC's costs, as agreed or assessed to 19 July 2024 and thereafter, on an indemnity basis.

2. APC later sought a gross costs order in the sum of $624,214.83. Her May 2025 motion was supported by an affidavit sworn by her solicitor Mr Ingleton. He explained the circumstances in which more time was required to put on evidence and submissions, with the result that further orders fixing a timetable for the filing and service of evidence and submissions were made.

3. On 27 May a further motion was filed, supported by another affidavit of Mr Ingleton, as well as that of the solicitor Ms Mossman, who was employed by DGT Costs Lawyers. It annexed her May 2025 report, which explained her role and experience in assessing costs, the instructions she had received, the material on which her report rested, the applicable statutory scheme, the issues she had considered and the conclusions she had reached. APC's claim was concerned with professional fees, counsels' fees and incurred disbursements.

4. APC had been directed to file and serve her submissions by no later than 16 June. She did not comply with this direction, providing her submissions only in July.

5. Mr B had become legally represented and approached on 30 June with a request that the timetable fixed be extended, it having required him to put on his evidence by no later than 2 June and his submissions by no later than 30 June. Later that day his solicitor advised that he no longer wished to put on evidence or submissions.

6. That position was revisited after APC's submissions were received. But there was no response to my Associate's enquiry about whether Mr B wished to respond to APC's submissions.

7. The result was that the gross order APC sought was not opposed.

8. APC's case was that the gross costs order which she pressed represented a fair and just amount of costs for the main proceedings' litigation. This was a reference to an ongoing issue lying between the parties about whether Mr B had breached the freezing order earlier made in the proceedings and was in contempt of Court, which is listed for hearing in October 2025.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1983f6c79226c0b7434cf428)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.