11 Oct 2016
Both appeals against the interlocutory orders were dismissed because the interlocutory applications had been dealt with before the plaintiff validly set down the trial, the first defendant had time and opportunity to raise objections earlier, the appeals were manifestly without reasonable grounds and constituted abuse and delay; indemnity costs were awarded to the plaintiff.
25 May 2010
Court refused further delay of the trial listing but allowed limited short extensions: 14 days to file a Revised Statement of Damages and 7 days to file a Revised Answer; the court ordered the case to be set down in the Running List with 3 days reserved within 14 days or face dismissal; awarded summary costs of $2,500 to the Defendant with legal aid taxation of the plaintiff's own costs.
4 May 2009
The stay pending a Legal Aid application was refused because the application was made too late due to the plaintiff's solicitors' failure to advise the client about costs and Legal Aid eligibility; the trial period is a milestone not to be adjourned absent exceptional reason, therefore the action proceeds and the solicitors must continue on record and instruct counsel without placing costs on account.
18 Feb 2004
The adjournment application was refused because it was made too late after lengthy prior exchanges; the discovery sought was largely second‑tier, plaintiffs delayed in raising matters and only recently involved counsel, and the prejudice to the court list and other litigants outweighed grounds for adjournment that could have been addressed by costs.
29 May 1995
The judge declined to make a costs order against Kader and refused to penalise Galco despite delay; the appropriate remedy was to order that the costs of the summons (and of the earlier 4 April 1995 hearing) be in the cause, no further orders on the summons were necessary at that time, and further review and listing directions should be pursued toward the end of July 1995 with potential trial dates to be sought for January 1996.
29 May 1995
Because Kader had itself delayed in serving its particulars and expanded discovery requests late, the judge found it unjust to penalise Galco; Galco had supplied particulars and supplemental documents within a reasonable period. Therefore no punitive costs order against Galco was made and the proper disposition was to order costs 'in the cause' and make no further interlocutory orders at this time.