The first defendants were the administrators of Ungal Properties and their conduct was called into question in these proceedings.
The first defendants prepared and served affidavits dealing with the conduct matters raised by the plaintiff. They did not, however, participate in the proceedings beyond the affidavits, leaving the second defendant to run the proceedings.
The second defendants were successful in the proceedings and were awarded costs. The first defendants sought their costs of preparing the affidavits, to which the judgment dealt solely.
It was held that the administrators had reasonably incurred the costs  and that by serving the affidavits they were made available for use by the other parties (although ultimately they were not read in the proceedings). The Court noted that they could recoup their costs from the second defendant (over which the first defendants had become deed administrators), however, that would deplete the deed fund and penalise the second defendant who had been successful in the proceedings: .
Costs were therefore awarded against the plaintiff in favour of the second defendant.
Relevant paragraphs of Ford
[11.265], [25.111], [25.125], [25.160], [26.090], [26.200], [26.240], [26.270], [26.300], [26.330], [26.350], [26.371], [26.380], [26.390], [27.126], [27.130], [27.180], [27.183], [27.410], [27.441] [27.865]