20 Apr 2018
The court accepted that the applicant had pursued multiple unsuccessful grounds that substantially increased the time and cost of the litigation and that, applying established principles on proportionality and the post-CJR approach to costs, a variation of the costs award was justified to reflect time and costs attributable to those unsuccessful grounds.
9 Jun 2011
The order requiring the 1st and 2nd respondents to pay interest was invalid; the appeal was allowed on that point; the petitioner must pay the 1st and 2nd respondents their costs of the appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (including costs of leave applications); there is no order as to the costs of the appeal before the Court of Appeal; each party bears its own costs in relation to written submissions on costs.
14 Jul 2006
The appeal court refused the application to amend the Notice of Appeal because the proposed grounds had been expressly abandoned by counsel in the court below and no justification was shown to resurrect them; accordingly the appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent.
13 Jan 2006
The application for leave was dismissed because the best evidence rule is largely inapplicable or confined to narrow circumstances, the original document was not available and inquiries had been made, no objection was raised at trial or in the Court of Appeal and the summing‑up addressed the issue even‑handedly; therefore there was no substantial and grave injustice warranting leave.