26 Nov 2019
The Court refused to award costs to the respondents for opposing the leave application because awarding costs would be inconsistent with the Court's clear objective of achieving finality and a pragmatic resolution between the long-standing parties; accordingly costs on the leave application are to lie where they fall.
2 Dec 2016
Because the parties enjoyed a relatively equal measure of success and failure on appeal, the appropriate exercise of the court's discretion was to let costs of the appeal lie where they fall; the appellant's submissions about the Points of Appeal did not justify departing from that outcome and the earlier substitution of ordinary costs for indemnity costs stands.
8 Aug 2014
Costs were declined because the respondent's conduct was not unreasonable or exceptional under s 45, the appellant's failure to provide court-ordered information materially contributed to the Family Court errors, and justice required that costs on the appeal lie where they fall.
11 Jun 2012
The judge exercised discretion on costs given that both plaintiff and defendants succeeded in part and failed in part, with significant concessions on both sides, and concluded that it was not appropriate to undertake detailed apportionment; accordingly costs were to lie where they fall and no order for costs was made.
17 Mar 2009
The plaintiff's application for wasted costs is dismissed; on balance the correct and just outcome is that costs lie where they fall in respect of the applications and memoranda relating to the Tomlin order, including those filed in January and February 2009.