15 Mar 2021
Because the consent orders substantially reflected the applicant's claim, the respondent put forward no alternative conditions or timeframe, and provided no sworn evidence of financial hardship, the applicant was the successful party and was entitled to costs on a 2A scale; the claimed disbursement was also recoverable and both amounts are to be deducted from the respondent's share of the sale proceeds.
22 Dec 2014
Because the proceedings were dismissed by consent and there was no judicial determination on the merits, and because it was not possible from the papers to say which party would have clearly won, the correct exercise of discretion is to make no order as to costs; r15.23 did not apply to a consent dismissal.
22 Oct 2014
Because the proceedings were resolved by agreement before trial without a determination of the merits, the parties all had proper interests and incurred costs, and there were no exceptional circumstances to depart from the normal rule, the appropriate order is that costs in the proceedings lie where they fall.
6 Jun 2014
The court exercised its discretion to award a reduced amount of costs because Transpower's post‑judgment decision to remove the lines materially achieved the plaintiffs' aims but the trial judgment showed mixed success; accordingly plaintiffs are awarded 25% of Band B scale costs and 25% of disbursements as a modest reflection of settlement impact while recognising the underlying judgment and mixed trial outcome.