Excellent question. This is a formal, legal-sounding phrase that can be a bit confusing at first glance.\n\nIn short, **\"That costs be costs in the cause\"** is a specific order made by a judge or court that means:\n\n> The final decision about who must pay the legal costs of a case will be made at the end of the trial, along with the final judgment on the main issue.\n\nLet's break it down in more detail.\n\n### The Core Meaning: Deferring the Decision\n\nThis phrase is used when a preliminary or interim motion (a request for a specific ruling during the case) is made. Instead of deciding who pays for that specific motion right then, the judge \"reserves\" or postpones the decision on costs. The costs of that motion will simply be added to the overall pool of costs for the entire lawsuit.\n\nThe ultimate winner of the case will then typically be awarded their costs, which will include the costs related to that earlier motion.\n\n### Breaking Down the Terminology\n\n* **Costs:** In a legal context, \"costs\" are the expenses incurred in conducting a lawsuit. This is not the same as \"damages\" (compensation for harm). Costs can include court filing fees, fees for serving documents, witness expenses, and most significantly, **attorney's fees**.\n* **In the Cause:** This is the key phrase. It means the costs are tied to the \"cause\" itself—the main subject matter of the lawsuit. The decision on these costs is dependent on the final outcome of the case.\n\n### A Simple Example\n\nLet's imagine a lawsuit: **Company A** is suing **Company B** for breach of contract.\n\n1. **During the lawsuit,** Company B files a \"motion to compel,\" asking the judge to force Company A to hand over certain documents it is withholding.\n2. The judge agrees with Company B and grants the motion. Company B's lawyer asks the judge to order Company A to pay the legal fees B incurred in bringing this successful motion.\n3. Instead of ordering immediate payment, the judge says, **\"Motion granted. That costs be costs in the cause.\"**\n\n**What this means:**\n\n* Company B has won this specific battle (it gets the documents).\n* The legal fees Company B spent on this motion are noted but not paid yet.\n* At the **end of the entire trial**, when a verdict is reached, the judge will decide who pays the overall costs.\n* If **Company B wins the entire lawsuit**, it will get a costs award that includes the fees from the \"motion to compel.\"\n* If **Company A wins the entire lawsuit**, it will likely get a costs award, and Company B will not be able to recover the fees it spent on that motion, even though it \"won\" that specific point.\n\n### Why Would a Judge Do This?\n\nJudges use this order for several practical reasons:\n\n1. **Judicial Economy:** It avoids having multiple, mini-hearings about costs throughout a case, saving the court's and the parties' time and resources.\n2. **Fairness:** It ensures the cost decision is made with a complete view of the entire case. A party might win a small procedural point but act in bad faith overall, which could influence the final cost decision.\n3. **Simplification:** It keeps the focus on the substantive issues of the case rather than getting bogged down in interim financial squabbles.\n\n### In Contrast: \"Costs in the Application\"\n\nThe opposite order would be **\"costs in the application\"** (or \"costs in the motion\"). This means the judge is making an immediate decision on who pays for that specific motion, regardless of the final outcome. The party that lost the motion would have to pay the winner's costs for that motion right away.\n\n---\n\n**In summary, \"That costs be costs in the cause\" is a procedural tool that kicks the can down the road, tying the cost of a specific legal action to the final result of the whole case.**

Excellent and very specific question. This gets into the strategic nuances of litigation practice.\n\nThe short answer is: **Yes, it is generally appropriate and very common to include this phrase when seeking an adjournment in a Notice of Motion.**\n\nHowever, whether it is the *best* or *most strategic* course of action depends on the circumstances and your client's position.\n\nHere is a detailed breakdown of the considerations, specifically in the context of a NSW UCPR Form 20 Notice of Motion.\n\n### The Rationale for Including It\n\nWhen you, as the moving party, are asking the court for an indulgence (like an adjournment), it is standard and prudent to offer to submit to a costs order. Asking for \"costs in the cause\" is the most common and often most reasonable position to take in such a scenario because:\n\n1. **It Acknowledges the Inconvenience:** You are recognizing that your adjournment request has caused the other party to incur costs (e.g., their barrister's brief fee for the day, preparation time).\n2. **It Appears Reasonable:** Proposing an immediate order that the other party pays your costs would be highly unusual and likely contested. Proposing that each party bears their own costs for the adjournment (`costs of the motion be each party's costs in the cause`) is also an option, but offering \"costs in the cause\" is a classic, neutral starting point that shows the court you are acting reasonably.\n3. **It Defers the Issue:** As we established, it efficiently postpones the costs decision to the final hearing, avoiding a potentially time-consuming argument about costs at the interim stage.\n\n### Drafting Your Notice of Motion (Form 20)\n\nIn the section of Form 20 where you list the orders you seek, you would typically structure it like this:\n\n> **ORDERS SOUGHT:**\n> 1. That the hearing of [e.g., the Defendant's Notice of Motion filed on [date]] / [the pre-trial conference listed for [date]] be adjourned to [proposed new date] or such other date as the Court considers convenient.\n> 2. **That the costs of this Motion be costs in the cause.**\n\n### Strategic Considerations and Alternatives\n\nWhile \"costs in the cause\" is the default, you should always consider the context. The other party may oppose your adjournment or argue for a different costs order. Be prepared to justify your position or negotiate.\n\nHere are the common costs scenarios for an adjournment and when they might apply:\n\n1. **Costs of the motion be costs in the cause (Your Proposal)**\n * **When to use:** This is your standard, \"safe\" position. You are not at fault, or the adjournment is due to a neutral event (e.g., a key expert witness has unexpectedly become unavailable, a scheduling conflict with a senior counsel). It's a \"let's sort this out later\" approach.\n\n2. **Costs of the motion be each party's costs in the cause**\n * **When to use:** This is a slightly stronger position for you if you believe the need for the adjournment is not your fault at all, or is a shared responsibility. It means that even if the other party ultimately wins the case, they cannot recover the costs they spent on this adjournment motion. You are essentially arguing that no one should be penalized for this procedural step.\n\n3. **Costs of the motion be the [Other Party's] costs in the cause**\n * **This is what the other party will ask for if they oppose the adjournment or if it is clearly your fault.** For example, if you failed to comply with a court timetable and need an adjournment to catch up, the other side will argue that they should get their costs of this motion, payable immediately or at the end of the case. If the adjournment is granted, the Court will likely impose this order.\n\n4. **The [Other Party's] costs of the motion be paid by the [Moving Party] on an indemnity basis, forthwith.**\n * **When this is used:** This is the \"nuclear\" option for the other side. They will seek this if your conduct in seeking the adjournment is deemed unreasonable, wasteful, or in bad faith (e.g., you waited until the last minute without a good reason). \"Forthwith\" means payable immediately, not at the end of the case. \"Indemnity basis\" is a higher level of costs recovery than the standard basis.\n\n### Practical Advice\n\n* **Always Include a Costs Prayer:** Never file a Notice of Motion without seeking a specific costs order. If you don't, you risk the court making an order you don't want, or having to argue about it from a disadvantaged position.\n* **\"Costs in the cause\" is a strong starting point.** It shows the court you are being fair-minded.\n* **Be prepared to argue.** If the other party had to cancel important plans or incurred significant wasted costs, they will likely argue for a more favorable costs order (like their costs in the cause). You need to be ready with your reasons why a neutral \"costs in the cause\" order is the just outcome.\n\n**Conclusion:**\n\n**Yes, it is entirely appropriate to include \"That the costs of this Motion be costs in the cause\" in your application for an adjournment using a Form 20 Notice of Motion under the UCPR.** It is the standard, prudent, and professionally expected course of action. It protects your client's position by submitting to the court's authority on costs while advocating for a outcome that defers the decision to the final judgment.\n\n***\n**Disclaimer:** This information is for general guidance only and does not constitute legal advice. You should consider the specific facts of your matter and seek advice from a qualified legal practitioner in your jurisdiction.