No April Fool’s Day jokes please.
Effective 1 April 2013 the Victorian Supreme Court has a new costs regime.
- The ‘party and party basis’ (by which most Supreme Court cost bills have historically been taxed) is axed.
- Henceforth, costs orders will generally be taxed on the more generous ‘solicitor and client basis’ (that is “all costs reasonably incurred and of reasonable amount”) although that yardstick is to be renamed the ‘standard basis.’
- Costs on an indemnity basis remain available.
- Solicitors’ time on the standard basis will be claimable in 6 minute units at the rate of $36 + GST per unit (ie $360 + GST per hour).
- Unless otherwise ordered, the maximum daily allowance for counsel is $5000 + GST per day for juniors and $7500 + GST per day for silks.
- Photocopying (currently allowable at a whopping $2.30 per page) becomes discretionary but is likely to be allowed in the Costs Court at 22 cents per printed side of page.
For a more detailed explanation of the new costs regime see:
- The new Order 63 itself – follow this link to the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005;
- Practice Note No 1 of 2013; and
- a two-page explanatory memorandum from the Supreme Court which I am happy to forward to anyone who emails me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
What do the changes mean?
It is probably good news for successful litigants. Any standard costs order in their favour should now translate into more coin in their pocket than was formerly likely under the more austere party and party basis.
It is correspondingly bad news for unsuccessful litigants (by which I include others such as winners who fail to beat their opponents’ Calderbank offers or Offers of Compromise).
And it’s likely business as usual for those practitioners of the dark arts of costs consulting.
Reblogged this on Carrie Rome-Sievers, Barrister and commented:
Many practitioners will already be aware of the new costs regime coming into force in the Victorian Supreme Court next week – 1 April 2013. It is worth noting. For those who would like a handy “cheat sheet” summary, I refer you to this excellent one prepared by my friend and colleague, Paul Duggan.
Pingback: The importance of Calderbank letters in restrictive covenant cases | Restrictive Covenants in Victoria