29 Nov 2023
Because the applicant succeeded on only one of four grounds and the respondent successfully defended three grounds which significantly increased its costs, the Court exercised its discretion under r14.7(d) to refuse an award of costs and ordered that costs lie where they fall.
25 May 2023
There was insufficient evidence of a causal link between the proceeding and the defendant vacating the property to treat the plaintiffs as successful for costs purposes; accordingly costs should lie where they fall and neither party is awarded indemnity or increased costs, including no costs award for the earlier summary judgment application.
16 Feb 2021
Although Extensor acted reasonably in bringing the application, the Court exercised its discretion under r 14.1 to displace the default rule in r 15.23 because the application was effectively unnecessary given an earlier appointment of an administrator and causation between Extensor's filing and payment of the debt was unclear; accordingly costs should lie where they fall.
5 Nov 2013
Although the creditor was prima facie entitled to commence adjudication, the court found an incongruity in pursuing adjudication while simultaneously executing on readily realisable assets, and the creditor appeared to have pursued adjudication against a debtor he likely believed to be solvent; on that basis the court exercised its discretion to refuse an award of costs and ordered that costs lie where they fall.
16 Apr 2009
The court declined to award costs and ordered that costs lie where they fall because the plaintiff failed to establish a good arguable cause for two of the three proceedings and the freezing order granted was substantially reduced from the relief sought; although the defendant arguably obtained greater success, shortcomings in the defendant's explanation regarding the Warkworth property weighed against awarding costs to the defendant.