24 Aug 2020
Because the 2nd Defendant unreasonably refused Skyhigh's October 2019 offer, the costs incurred from 8 October 2019 to 22 May 2020 are severable, substantial and properly payable forthwith as a sanction under the CJR; accordingly the summons to vary the costs order was acceded to and immediate payment by the 2nd Defendant ordered.
23 Mar 2015
Leave to appeal dismissed because the applicant failed to show a reasonable prospect of success; the judge did not misexercise her discretion in making a costs order 'in the cause' given the interlocutory nature of the Discovery Summons and the application of RHC Order 62 r.3(2A); the wife's arguments did not demonstrate that the judge was plainly wrong.
10 Jan 2003
The application was refused because the issues at the pretrial review were routine case management matters that were not sufficiently complex nor likely to dispose of the actions or engage the appeal process and therefore could be adequately handled by competent local counsel; public interest did not justify admitting overseas counsel for the interlocutory hearing.
3 Mar 1999
The Court held that the defendants' objection under Order 18 r.15(2) was unarguable because the allegation concerning "Super Mario 4" fell within the scope of the writ endorsement as a possible colourable imitation; the objection constituted satellite litigation that only delayed proceedings and therefore the appeal was allowed and costs were ordered on an indemnity basis in this Court and below.
4 May 1998
The objection was well founded: the affirmation is inadmissible insofar as it contains statements purporting to be information or belief without stating sources and grounds and without showing personal knowledge; defects can be cured by filing a further affirmation, necessitating an adjournment.
22 Jul 1996
Order 72 rule 2(3) removes jurisdiction from Masters to exercise powers of a judge in chambers in relation to commercial list actions unless the commercial list judge has given a direction permitting Masters to do so; no such direction existed, therefore the Master's order granting an extension was beyond jurisdiction and the plaintiff's appeal must be allowed.
4 Jul 1994
The usual order in interlocutory proceedings is that costs be "in any event"; no factor or combination of factors in this case justified departing from that practice (the taxation was not shown to warrant immediate payment without causing undue disruption), therefore the costs previously awarded to the defendants are ordered to be in any event and the costs of this application are to be to the plaintiff in any event.
20 Oct 1971
Plaintiff entitled to damages as claimed on liability established by default; award general damages $3,500 and accept proven special damages of $730 (7 weeks wages $700 and $30 clothing) but reject unproven $500 nutritious food, resulting in total judgment of $4,230; defendant to pay costs to be taxed and a certificate for counsel is granted.
Interlocutory applications heard by the District Court prior to 19/12/81 amount to matters or proceedings that the Court 'has heard or commenced to hear' within s.59(1); therefore s.59(1) requires the District Court to continue and dispose of those matters as if the Amendment Ordinance had not been enacted, and the new Section 53A does not apply to these actions.