8 Dec 2023
The Court granted the extension of time under r 43 because the delay was short, caused by counsel oversight, produced no prejudice, and the proposed appeal raised issues warranting a second appeal; although the respondent acted unreasonably by not consenting as required by r 19A, the ordinary course of costs lies where they fall.
22 Jul 2020
Because the applicant succeeded in sustaining the caveat, costs for the s143 application are awarded now on the 2B scale; deferral was unnecessary despite arguments about credibility and delay.
20 Dec 2019
Costs are awarded to the first defendant and to the second and third defendants on a 2B basis; the claim for the 28 May 2019 case management conference attendance is reduced by two thirds for each defendants' claim; no allowance is made for sealing unless the judgment is sealed; interlocutory preparation fees (step 30) are recoverable as they related to preparation for the interlocutory hearing; a 50% uplift is declined because the plaintiff's novel and difficult issues justified declining the defendants' offer; defendants' concession not to enforce costs except in the final Property (Relatio…
31 May 2019
Costs awarded to the plaintiffs on a Band B basis; interlocutory application for leave costs lie where they fall; net uplift of 10% granted (25% uplift allowed less 15% abatement for unsuccessful causes/relief); expert fees allowed including 50% of 2017 expert costs and full trial expert costs as reasonable; LawFlow e-discovery fee allowed; filing fees for originating and interlocutory application disallowed; second counsel certified; costs on costs submissions allowed at 50% of claimed item 24; total award $133,716.70.
5 Feb 2018
Applications were declined because, despite the transcript, the defendants' pleaded fraud defence contained sufficiently particularised and arguable allegations that could not be dismissed on strike-out or by summary judgment; therefore the enforcement claim must proceed to trial and costs are reserved.
18 Apr 2016
The interlocutory application was dismissed because the removal of executors is substantive relief not ancillary or procedural and therefore cannot be sought by interlocutory application; the correct procedure is to bring a claim by originating application/statement of claim under Part 5 of the High Court Rules; consequently the plaintiff's interlocutory application to replace the executors is declined.
29 Feb 2016
The Court held that the defendants' industrial application plea was sufficiently pleaded if paragraph 23 was amended to specify the copyright works in paras 15, 29 and 32; plaintiffs must discover pleadings and the plaintiffs' briefs/cross-examination from the ESR proceeding insofar as they relate to subsistence and originality of the artistic works common to both proceedings (Toscana, Irish Coast, PGT Lifestyle Additions); defendants must amend their affidavit of documents to particularise the Miscellaneous category; the second counterclaim will not be struck out as it legitimately places th…
27 Aug 2014
The Act contemplates a broad class of potential 'interested persons' and the Court retains adequate control via s107 and its inherent jurisdiction to exclude or permit parties; accordingly CORANZ, which demonstrated a genuine interest and potential to provide relevant information, could not be struck out at interlocutory stage where it filed a timely notice of appearance and did not disclose no reasonably arguable case.
25 Mar 2014
The unsigned draft will was declared valid under s14 Wills Act 2007 because the deceased gave clear, consistent instructions which the draft accurately recorded, she approved the draft and intended to sign but was prevented by ill health, and there were no competing wills or objections from affected persons; procedural rules permitted determination without notice and treatment of the filing as an originating application.
11 Dec 2013
Leave to appeal is refused because the applicant failed to identify a seriously arguable question of law of general or public importance; the Environment Court did not err in striking out the claim or in finding the runway diversion was lawfully constructed; the statutory provisions relied on did not establish a basis to overturn the conclusion; interlocutory applications were meritless and a hearing would not have changed the outcome.