30 Jun 2023
The High Court's costs judgment, which was expressed to be made in favour of the Court of Appeal and thereby named a senior appellate court as a respondent and beneficiary, was inappropriate and unworkable; the appeal is allowed, the High Court judgment is set aside, and the proceeding is remitted to the High Court.
15 Jun 2020
Although the general presumption under r 15.23 would have made the discontinuing applicant (Ms Smith) liable for costs, the Court exercised its discretion given the reasonableness of both parties' conduct and partial success by Ms Smith; the Court ordered the Body Corporate to pay Reveal's expert costs of $18,715.56 (including GST) and directed that all other costs and disbursements incurred by the parties arising from the litigation lie where they fall.
2 May 2017
Leave to appeal was declined because the proposed legal questions were not arguable for the purposes of s 214; Kidd does not establish a categorical requirement of proved legal insolvency before a non-party may be joined for costs under s 221 ERA and the Employment Court did not misapply the law in making an interlocutory joinder on the evidence of funding, control and the employee's inability to meet a costs order.
16 Sept 2016
Costs were not awarded because the appellant advanced focused, reasoned and genuinely held arguments in the child's best interests, the appeal was withdrawn after consideration demonstrating responsible conduct, and it would be contrary to principle to penalise a parent for legitimately advancing such arguments; therefore costs lie where they fall.
2 Sept 2016
The plaintiff's application for costs after the recall judgment was declined because the recall judgment constituted a final determination on the matters including costs rather than an interlocutory order amenable to r14.8(2); r14.8(2) permits revisiting costs only where subsequent events justify it, which was not established here; accordingly the application was dismissed and the defendant awarded a modest sum for memorandum costs.
28 Jul 2015
The High Court held the arbitrator erred by awarding Value Add to the sharemilkers by estoppel when estoppel had not been pleaded and essential facts of reliance were not alleged or proved; however, on contractual interpretation the agreement likely entitled the sharemilkers to share of Value Add and the arbitrator must be remitted to reconsider the contract interpretation, costs and interest in light of the Court's opinion and permitted procedural remedies (including allowing amendment to pleadings or reconsidering estoppel). The winter milking loss claim was a factual determination and not…
16 Aug 2010
None of the appellant's reasons displaced the primary principle that costs follow the event; accordingly an award of one day's 2B scale costs at $1880 was appropriate.
4 Aug 2009
The appeal was dismissed because the Reviewer's decision that he had no jurisdiction was correct: the application for review failed to identify a primary decision within s6 of the Act and was therefore invalid and not reasonably brought; accordingly the Reviewer's exercise of discretion to refuse costs was upheld.
10 Nov 2005
The reviewer correctly declined jurisdiction to decide the date of incapacity because the primary decision under review (the accredited employer's 3 September 2004 decision) had been revoked, leaving no live issue for review; however the reviewer erred in failing to award costs for the first review hearing and the court quashed that aspect of the review decision and substituted an award of costs, disbursements and travelling costs in the appellant's favour, while making no order as to costs of the appeal itself.
26 Jul 2001
The primary decision revoking cover is quashed because the Reviewer failed to decide the correct issue (whether the injury is HAVS); the matter is remitted to the Reviewer to consider the claim as a gradual process injury (HAVS) with all evidence provided, and the appellant is awarded $500 representation costs plus the costs of Dr Hancock's report.