Hicks (No 2): 'Hindsight' not enough for indemnity costs

In this article, James Alsop, Craig Jackson, Aylin Harapoz, Marko Trifunovski, and Wendy Sampurna unpack the Full Federal Court’s decision and its impact on the interpretation of scope of Rule 25.14 - a departure from prior views which flowed from Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Clark (No 2) [2011] FCAFC 140.

The recent decision in Commissioner of Taxation v Hicks (No 2) [2026] FCAFC 14 (Hicks (No 2)) offers clarity on the circumstances in which indemnity costs may be awarded under Rule 25.14 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (Rule 25.14) where a party rejects an offer of compromise. See related article: City Beach surfs past the application of Part IVA, section 45B in the Full Federal Court Following the taxpayers' win in Commissioner of Taxation v Hicks [2025] FCAFC 171 (Hicks (No 1)) - re...

Sign in below or register now to read the full article

Authors: James Alsop, Craig Jackson,

Published Date: 18 March 2026