In Recycling Developments Pty Ltd v Bespoke Recycling Industries Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] QSC 67, the Supreme Court of Queensland dealt with a dispute over costs following judgment on related applications. The first plaintiff's application to remove a caveat from the land was dismissed, and the defendants' application to strike out parts of the third amended statement of claim was allowed. The litigation primarily revolved around the rightful removal of a caveat lodged against the land subject to a sale option, which the second defendant claimed to have. The court ruled that the costs related to the caveat removal application be borne by the defendants, as their success in the proceeding would justify recovering these costs. However, should the defendants fail to establish their entitlement, they would still not be required to bear the second plaintiff's costs of the application.
top of page
bottom of page