11 Aug 2023
The court held that a 2B scale was appropriate and declined any uplift because the defendants acted on legal advice, sought to resolve matters, and were entitled to have their position tested; losing the point did not amount to unreasonable conduct justifying increased costs. Allocations for second counsel were disallowed and duplicated application time reduced.
12 Jun 2023
The application for indemnity or increased costs was dismissed because the alleged forgery could not be determined on the costs application and the respondents' timetable non-compliance was minor and adequately explained; accordingly the respondents were ordered to pay scale costs on a 2B basis and reasonable disbursements fixed by the Registrar.
28 Feb 2023
The court held the transfer was invalid because Pamela only held a life interest and therefore lacked the right to dispose of the shares; Joanna's opposition lacked merit and unjustifiably delayed return of the shares, so costs are awarded to the plaintiff on a 2B basis without an uplift.
4 Sept 2020
S 274 parties occupy a sui generis position: while the ordinary High Court costs regime and r14.15 apply, the statutory policy permitting s 274 participation and the limited threshold to join mean a successful s 274 party can recover costs where appropriate; the court must balance level of success, actual assistance to the Court, and RMA policy. Applying that approach, the appellant was ordered to pay the s 274 party reduced costs of $8,000 (about two‑thirds of claimed 2B scale).
5 Aug 2020
Plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendant specified wasted costs and disbursements and costs for filing the application; the court held that scale costs are GST neutral and awarded the sums sought (with GST treatment as stated).
21 Nov 2018
The court refused Samsung’s sought 50% uplift because SCC’s conduct did not materially increase the time or expense of the proceeding and the steps taken by Samsung required only a normal amount of time; actual legal expenditure is not a material basis for increased costs, so Samsung is entitled only to 2B costs and disbursements as quantified.
16 Feb 2017
Leave to discontinue was granted. The second respondent does not seek costs. The Commissioner may pursue an award of costs; the Court directed a specific timetable for written submissions and ordered allocation of a half-day hearing to determine the costs issue.
15 Sept 2014
The application for costs was dismissed because costs had not been sought at the time of the judgment dismissing special leave and the subsequent recall application was categorically different, making the costs application untimely.
18 Aug 2011
Costs applications dismissed because both parties succeeded to an extent, the proceedings produced determinations beneficial to both, there was no evidence of substantial additional costs incurred by the defendant on the withdrawn claim, and the family context and overall justice required each party bear their own costs.
19 Apr 2010
The application for costs was dismissed because the memorandum was filed long after the deadline and the applicants failed to lay a sufficient foundation to justify an extension of time under r1.19(1); given the need for predictable and expeditious resolution of costs (r14.2(g)) the Court would not grant indulgence based on a bald assertion of oversight.