The lawyers in the corners of Indian couple Pankaj and Radhika Oswal and the ANZ bank had already cost tens of millions of dollars before the bell rang in their $2.5 billion legal bout.
Five years of numerous legal proceedings have culminated in the main event: a six-month civil trial in the Victorian Supreme Court.
Mr Oswal has estimated the couple, formerly based in Perth and now in Dubai, has spent $65 million on lawyers in the various cases before the complex trial began on May 30.
The Oswals returned to Australia in April after a five-year absence for the Victorian trial and another case in Sydney where the taxation commissioner is chasing them for alleged unpaid taxes.
The Oswals are covering their legal fees through a litigation funding agreement with a company connected to Mrs Oswal's brother.
The litigation funder stands to gain an enormous amount if the claims succeed, a judge noted in February.
The Oswals have had to provide more than $6.3 million in security to the court to cover the costs of ANZ and the receivers, plus three other parties involved in the proceedings, in the event that the couple lose the trial.
Court documents show the Oswals incurred costs in excess of $38 million by late February this year.
The ANZ and receivers it appointed to the Oswals' Australian fertiliser business in December 2010 would have also spent tens of millions of dollars.
Their legal costs had reached $17 million by July 2014, court documents show.
The courtroom has seating for about 40 lawyers, who include nine barristers with the title of Queen's Counsel or Senior Counsel.
In previous hearings about security for costs, various parties have claimed daily rates of about $8200 for senior counsel - although they can get more in complex cases - and up to $5150 for junior counsel.
Then there are: solicitors costs, for which the ANZ and receivers alone had a $5.7 million bill covering November 2014 and late February this year; expert witnesses charging as much as $US800 an hour; and the costs involved with the court itself.
The parties were all claiming more than the judge ended up allowing for costs.
The Oswals are seeking up to $2.5 billion in damages from the bank and receivers, arguing their 65 per cent stake in Burrup Holdings was sold for less than half its true value in 2012.
Share
