6 Oct 2023
The plaintiffs, as successful parties, were awarded costs on a category 2B basis in the amount of $43,856.50; disbursements were allowed as per the plaintiffs' schedule but excluding GST because the plaintiffs did not advise the Court that they were not GST-registered, and the Court proceeds on the assumption of GST registration.
29 Oct 2021
Respondents were entitled to costs on a 2B basis; after disallowing specific non-claimable items and recognizing duplicate steps across mirror proceedings, the 2B scale plus disbursements exceeded actual costs, and the court awarded 50% of actual costs to each respondent, namely $17,050.42 per proceeding.
24 Sept 2019
Because the defendants withdrew their interlocutory discovery application after obtaining a fixture, the plaintiff was the successful party and is entitled to costs and disbursements sought; reserving costs would be inconsistent with r14.2 and the exercise of discretion to be principled and predictable.
5 Jun 2019
The appellants, as the successful parties, are entitled to costs; the appeal required the expertise and time contemplated by category 2B so category 2B is appropriate; separate costs for the cross-appeal and for additional good-faith submissions are allowable because those matters raised distinct issues; production of fee invoices is not mandatory where counsel satisfactorily confirms costs were incurred; accordingly costs awarded in terms of the appellants' schedule A (costs $28,321 and disbursements $2,341.05).
20 Mar 2018
The court exercised its discretion to award costs to the successful second respondents in the sum of $19,875.40, finding the claimed steps were legitimately taken, the award was less than scale, the applicant's submissions to reclassify the proceeding as an originating application or to exclude costs said to relate to the statutory demand were rejected, and no disentitling factors applied.
21 Sept 2015
The defendant's claim was dismissed and, applying High Court Rules r14.2, the plaintiff was entitled to costs on the 2B scale; the proceedings were of average complexity with no basis for uplift or reduction, the plaintiff reasonably incurred 2.85 days of work for specified steps, and a 2B award of $5,671.50 was appropriate.
1 Aug 2012
Award costs to defendant for the successful further and better particulars application; no order for costs for the further and better discovery application because the parties had approximately equal success (about 50% of documents ordered), so costs in respect of discovery should lie where they fall.