9 Nov 2023
Although the plaintiffs were the successful party on the defendants' interlocutory application, special reasons existed to reserve costs until final determination because resolution requires a full review of long and partly without prejudice settlement negotiations and related material not before the Court, and that review is best undertaken at the conclusion of the substantive proceeding.
6 Oct 2023
Costs awarded to the first defendant on a 2B basis in the sum of $6,116.50 because costs follow the event under r 14.2(1)(a), the matter was of average complexity, the claimed amount was correctly calculated overall against allocated days and the plaintiff offered no grounds to oppose the award.
24 Aug 2023
The Court declined to recall its leave decision because Ideal's grounds did not fall within the narrow exceptional categories for recall and attempted a collateral attack on the merits; the High Court decision on representative orders under r 4.24 was interlocutory under the Senior Courts Act and did not attract an appeal as of right under s 56(4); allegations of apparent bias from historical associations with firms were unfounded; costs awarded to EQC on a band A basis.
21 Jul 2023
Leave to appeal was declined because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error in the High Court's interlocutory decision; the underlying tort claim had already been considered by the Court of Appeal and found to be untenable and apparently vexatious, making lifting the stay pointless and an abuse of process; granting leave would not serve the interests of justice.
13 Jul 2023
Applicant entitled to costs on a 2B basis; matter was of average complexity so Band B time allowances applied; court reduced claimed fees by removing two of four memoranda as unnecessary (reducing claimed costs by $1,912) and awarded costs of $12,906 plus disbursements $643.26 (total $13,549.26) to be paid by the respondent.
1 May 2023
The strike out application was dismissed; costs awarded to the successful party (MBS) on the 2B scale because the application was not sufficiently complex to warrant 2C, and a 50% uplift was justified because QLDC pursued the interlocutory application despite prior detailed correspondence from MBS explaining why it would fail.
21 Apr 2023
The application for an extension of time was declined because the applicants, familiar with appellate processes and given a prior reminder, failed to comply with r 43 within the three‑month period or satisfactorily explain the delay; the proposed appeal lacked merit and there was no public interest reason to grant leniency, so the interests of justice did not require an extension.
29 Nov 2022
The interlocutory application was hopeless, lacked requisite standing and was an abuse of process likely instigated to delay approval of liquidators' costs; therefore the discontinuing applicant is liable for costs. The court exercised discretion under r14.6 to depart from pure scale only to award scale costs on a 2B basis to both successful parties with a 50% uplift, but declined to award indemnity costs because there was some basis for believing the applicant may have sincerely (if wrongly) believed unresolved issues existed.
13 Sept 2022
The court exercised its discretion to grant joinder of Radford Yarn Technologies as an additional plaintiff to the first and second causes of action, subject to terms: amended statement of claim filed by 5 pm today; defendants to file statement of defence by 5 pm Wednesday (with leave to defer if necessary); plaintiff to provide an affidavit before closing submissions confirming discovery of all relevant documents; and plaintiff to pay defendants' 2B costs.
27 May 2022
The successful parties (third and fourth defendants) were entitled to costs; there were no special reasons to reserve or reduce costs in this case; the plaintiffs opposed to advance their own interests and risked adverse costs consequences; therefore costs were awarded to the third and fourth defendants on a 2B basis in the sum of $7,050.50.