27 Feb 2026
None of the plaintiff's grounds met the statutory test for leave to appeal (no reasonable prospect of success) and none established actual or apparent bias; the judge and Master lawfully exercised their discretion and the Costs Order stands; both applications dismissed with costs to defendants.
6 Oct 2020
Leave to withdraw the originating summons is granted but the plaintiff must pay the defendant's costs to be summarily assessed because the general rules requiring a withdrawing plaintiff and Norwich Pharmacal applicants to pay costs apply and there was no sufficient reason to depart from those rules given the settlement removed the basis for the application.
3 Jul 2018
The Court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs because the Lands Tribunal's judgment established that the alleged colouring error did not affect the status or value of the West Yard as common parts and therefore could not have caused loss to the deceased's estate, and because rectification would require joining the other owners so the claim against the defendant alone was procedurally misconceived.
16 Jun 1969
The court refused summary judgment for $1.6 million because the defendant's admissions were made as part of conditional settlement negotiations and expressly contingent on a written agreement and withdrawal of the action, so the admissions could not be isolated and acted upon under O.27 r.3; however, because the claim involves an account the court ordered that accounts be taken under O.43.