Recently, the Federal Court of Justice took a different path. In developing its new approach, the Court consulted with leading cost experts and lawyers who are interested in this area, some of whom are here today. The amendments introduced as part of the National Court of Justice reforms are part of a wide range of improvements that expand the use of more efficient case management methods, expand the use of procedures to expedite hearings, have focused on less costly dispute resolution and aim to reduce unnecessary practices of lawyers. These reforms, introduced in October 2016 through revised practices, are expected to increase efficiency, reduce complexity and reduce legal costs. More information on costing is available on the Judicial Service`s website. In the main case Of Beach Petroleum NL/Johnson (No. 2) (Strand), which was tried in 1995, Von Doussa J considered the Court`s assessment of awarding lump sum fees instead of imposing a tax. He endorsed the principles set out by the United Kingdom Court of Appeal in the Leary/Leary case and expressed the objective of the settlement to avoid costs, delays and aggravations resulting from lengthy litigation resulting from cost taxation. His honour stated that the enormity and cost of developing a detailed cost calculation in complex litigation shows how unsuitable the old tax system is to the modern business world and described the requirement to prepare a bill in a taxable form as an “unrealistic requirement that would require a fairly inadequate time and cost.” A concession royalty payer is a person who holds an updated health card under the Commonwealth Social Security Act 1991 at the time of payment of a levy. It should be taken into account that the cases do not provide for a review for the exercise of the Court of Justice`s discretion to permit flat-rate fees.
The value of these cases is that they highlight the considerations previously considered relevant and the weight that has been recognized for them, so that they can be a guide for the future application of the Court`s discretion. However, the exercise of discretion is largely based on facts and it is generally unwise to attempt to extrapolate circumstances from one dispute to those of another.  Parties 7.2 – 7.3 of this practice note provide that the parties and their lawyers are expected to cooperate with the Court and that they are legally required to cooperate with the Court and assist each other in achieving the higher objective (Ss 37M and 37N of the ACA) in order to facilitate the fair resolution of disputes as quickly, as costly and as effectively as possible. This cooperation requires (and the Court expects) that the parties and their lawyers consider how best to handle their cases for the general purpose. The overall goal is to eliminate unnecessary “process-controlled” costs. The Court expects that the parties and their counsel will keep in mind at all times the costs of each stage of the proceedings and that this is necessary. Section 43 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (FCA) provides for specific legislative authority for the awarding of costs in proceedings before the Court of Justice. Section 43 (2) states that “the award of costs is left to the discretion of the Court of Justice or the judge, unless it is provided for by another statute.” Discretion is absolute and fully subject to the requirement to exercise this discretion. The applicant, Hypoct Pty Ltd, had attempted to use a decision on costs obtained from the Federal Court to assess its costs under the NSW law costing system under NSW law, under the aegis of the NSW Supreme Court.
8 The tax controller is two main categories of costs, based on the considerable experience he has gained from his professional experience as a lawyer and also in the costs of this brochure; (a) party and party fees as well as credit and customer-specific costs.