4 Jun 2021
Leave to appeal was unnecessary for the strike out order and the refusal of an adjournment had become academic after the substantive judgment; the application for leave was therefore dismissed and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs for the application.
23 Oct 2019
Because the substantive proceedings are complex, the respondent was not prepared to proceed, and the issues as to caveatable interest and the 'no caveat' clause required full argument, it was appropriate under s143(4)(b) of the Land Transfer Act 2017 to make an interim order sustaining the caveat until the matter is properly argued and further orders issued.
14 Oct 2019
The appeal was struck out due to the appellant's non-appearance and breaches of timetable orders including failure to pay security for costs; in those circumstances the respondent was entitled to costs and the sum sought ($5,019) plus disbursements ($250) was appropriate and awarded.
17 Sept 2019
The Court vacated the scheduled hearing and exercised its case management discretion to require the first defendant to file any amended defence, set strict timelines for pleadings and evidence, and provide for either a preliminary jurisdictional hearing on causes of action three and five or allocation of a substantive fixture; costs for the late adjournment application were reserved.
5 Sept 2019
Because the Commissioner filed the background material, confirmed there was no opposition and complied with the timetable directions, the Court was satisfied the requirements for dealing with the applications on the papers were met and it was appropriate to order the sale of the three motor vehicles and the outboard motor in terms of the draft order filed on 3 September 2019.
25 May 2018
The application was dismissed because the timetable set by Fitzgerald J had properly allowed for necessary steps before trial, the registry had no available trial time of the required duration before year-end, and the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that delay until 4 February 2019 would cause such an injustice as to justify displacing the existing timetable.
5 Oct 2017
Because the respondent continued to enforce a statutory demand despite the applicant having raised a bona fide dispute over the only remaining claimed sum (debt collection costs), the respondent acted without justification in not withdrawing the demand and must therefore pay the applicant's costs of the proceeding on an indemnity basis; no deduction for early filing of the bundle and synopsis is warranted.
19 Jun 2017
Costs for the adjournment were assessed at 0.7 of a day on a 2B rate ($1,561) and uplifted by $250 because of multiple timetable breaches and failure to notify; total costs of $1,811 awarded in favour of the defendants and ordered to be paid personally by Mr P F Chambers.
28 Apr 2017
The defendants achieved substantial practical success though not full relief; the Court exercised its costs discretion to award defendants specified costs and disbursements reduced for written submissions, and ordered the plaintiff's admitted costs on the withdrawn strike‑out application to be offset, resulting in a net payment by the plaintiff of $3,443.50 to the defendants.
13 Sept 2016
The court exercised its discretion to rescind Brewer J's debarment order and grant an extension of time narrowly on conditions because the defendant genuinely had funding and representation problems, the default was not a prolonged pattern, there was a real arguable defence and the delay was not inordinate; relief was conditional on prompt compliance with discovery and payment of indemnity costs to address prejudice to the plaintiff.