15 Oct 2021
Although the court found the summons dated 23 July 2021 to be unmeritorious, the applicant offered to withdraw it with no order as to costs and the respondent unreasonably insisted on costs; exercising its discretion under Order 62, the court ordered that there be no order as to costs for the summons dated 23 July 2021 and the related costs-only proceedings.
5 Dec 2019
Leave to appeal refused because the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success; the judge lawfully exercised discretion under Order 62 by taking into account the parties' conduct before and during the proceedings (including collusion in a feigned divorce and false assertions leading to a Consent Order) which were connected to the subject matter of the main action; therefore costs order nisi was correctly made that Mr Wong pay Ms Mang's costs of the Summons to be summarily assessed.
17 Sept 2019
The court exercised its discretion to allocate costs by assessing the parties' conduct both in the litigation and in the events leading to it; because both parties actively colluded in a sham divorce and gave evidence of limited credibility, neither party merited a wholly indemnity costs award and costs were apportioned in light of mutual misconduct and the outcome of the substantive proceedings.
11 Nov 2015
Although the defendant is regarded as the successful party because the plaintiff was awarded only nominal damages, the defendant acted improperly and unreasonably in raising multiple meritless defences and in bringing about the litigation, justifying a departure from the usual rule; consequently the court apportioned costs so that the defendant pays 40% of the costs of the action to the plaintiff, to be taxed if not agreed.
2 Aug 2012
The concession did not constitute an isolated event distinct from the Applicant's defence or the Application and did not justify a substantial departure from the general rule; having regard to conduct and overlap the Applicant is awarded 95% of the costs of the Action to be taxed at District Court scale if not agreed; certificate for one counsel granted; no order as to costs of this summons.
29 Jan 2010
The Master’s orders were incorrect; the Plaintiff had supported and sought to uphold those orders on appeal; because the appeal was successful and it was a discrete matter correcting the court below, costs should follow the event and the Defendant is awarded its costs of the appeal in any event, including costs of preparing the written argument and counsel's fees.