17 Mar 2026
The Order was set aside because both defendants had died before commencement of proceedings; without a carry on order the originating summons could not be validly served on their estates under Order 15 r 6A(3), rendering the default judgment irregular and justifying setting it aside with no order as to costs.
8 Mar 2024
The cause of action for a Section 8 declaration accrued before the Applicant's death and survives under s20 LARCO; a Section 8 declaration after death serves useful and concrete purposes (confirming marital status and legitimacy and clarifying validity of subsequent marriages); Order 15 r7 did not apply because the deceased's interest had not been assigned or transmitted, but Order 15 r15 applied and the Daughter (CWY) was properly appointed to represent the estate for the proceedings.
7 Jul 2023
Court found no credible basis for a common law claim on the available medical evidence and that, although the writ was issued as a protective measure, plaintiffs' solicitors had caused unnecessary hearings by failures in case management; accordingly plaintiffs bear costs up to the solicitors' cessation (23 Feb 2023) but the solicitors must show cause within 14 days why they should not be personally liable for costs of the two CMCs, to be assessed and payable on an indemnity basis if liability is established.
18 Nov 2021
Applying the discretionary principles that costs normally follow the event but taking account of conduct and separable issues, the court ordered that the Company pay 80% of Betty's costs of the Set Aside Summons, the Company pay Leo and Betty's costs of the Strike Out Summons (costs to follow the event), the Company pay 80% of Leo and Betty's costs of the Amendment Summons while the costs of effecting the amendments themselves are to be borne by Leo and Betty, and no order as to costs for the Injunction Summons; costs awarded in favour of Leo and Betty are with certificate for two counsel, to…
4 Oct 2017
Order 15 r6A permits appointment of the 2nd applicant to represent the deceased's estate prior to grant; the 2nd applicant satisfied s.570(2)(b) by demonstrating it was probable they would become a member; accordingly the court had jurisdiction to order convening of EGMs and the ancillary relief sought, and it was appropriate to grant those orders together with the carry‑on authorisation.