30 Aug 2023
The court applied r 14.8 and its discretion on costs and concluded there were no special reasons to depart from fixing costs; however, because the parties had shared success (split success) on the interlocutory applications, the appropriate outcome was that costs lie where they fall and no order as to costs be made.
19 Jun 2023
The court held that r 7.77(8) ordinarily requires the plaintiffs to bear the costs of their application for leave to amend, but fairness required deducting $1,434 (the plaintiffs' cost of preparing the application) from the defendants' costs claim because the defendants' prior proposal obliging plaintiffs to prepare the application made that expense reasonably incurred; the first defendants were awarded 2B costs of $6,684 and disbursements of $734.66; filing fee and printing disbursements were allowed.
13 Jul 2022
The defendant's subsequent consent to a permanent trustee appointment did not constitute a new fact bearing on the costs of the earlier interlocutory hearing; the recall application improperly sought to relitigate the interlocutory costs decision and therefore recall was refused, with any impact on substantive costs to be assessed in the substantive proceeding.
15 Dec 2021
The Court ordered Lynn be joined personally under r 4.56 because personal relief was sought against her; awarded costs to Lynn on the strike-out application (2B scale less 25%); required an undertaking in damages within five working days for interlocutory preservation orders; scheduled the interlocutory hearing for 8 February 2022 subject to agreement on interim payment of Mr Vance's fees (effectively an interim Beddoe arrangement); and issued a detailed timetable for filing evidence and submissions, while deferring determination of admissibility and cross-examination applications until forma…
29 Oct 2021
Exercising the discretion under r 14.8(2) of the High Court Rules 2016, the Court varied its earlier costs order and determined that, having balanced factors including that the Monnerys were granted an indulgence, Convendium risked a costs award by opposing the applications, the existence of mutual claims and the liquidation of Convendium, the interests of justice require that costs in respect of the interlocutory applications lie where they fall.
22 Oct 2021
The Court held that the inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to override a statutory jury election under s 16(3), but a party who has given a jury notice may, with leave, withdraw that election; accordingly the plaintiff was granted leave to withdraw his jury notice on the condition he consents to an extension of time permitting the defendant to give a jury notice by 8 November 2021, and no order as to costs was made.
12 Aug 2021
Costs on the two interlocutory applications were fixed and awarded to the defendants because the plaintiff failed on those applications, there was no special reason to defer or reduce costs despite BORA context, and a 50% uplift was warranted on the second application because it was duplicative and entirely without merit thereby unnecessarily increasing costs.
15 Jul 2021
Summary judgment was dismissed because significant factual disputes and credibility/admissibility issues prevented the court from being satisfied the defendant met the high threshold required for a defendant's summary judgment; accordingly costs follow the event and the first defendant must pay the plaintiffs' costs on a 2B basis with allowance for second counsel and a single allocation for steps 24 and 25, but no uplift was awarded due to late evidence and mixed success on admissibility issues.
23 Apr 2021
The plaintiff did not demonstrate she had succeeded on the interlocutory application; mootness alone does not establish success and the applicant bore the onus to explain why she should be regarded as having succeeded, therefore her claim for costs and disbursements was rejected.
30 Aug 2019
Although the applicant achieved interim orders, the outcome was substantially a negotiated settlement and the respondent had indicated willingness to negotiate; accordingly costs were awarded to the applicant but reduced by 30% to reflect the negotiated resolution and background circumstances, with no dispute as to the quantum claimed.