7 Feb 2020
Applicants' s 239 applications were dismissed as unsuccessful and plainly unmeritorious; no special circumstances justified departing from the ordinary costs regime, so the applicants were ordered to pay the Official Assignee's costs on a 2B basis, fixed at an all‑inclusive $12,786.50.
28 Jun 2019
Because the Supreme Court reversed the earlier substantive positions and declared the appellants to be the successful party on the substantive issues, the general principle that costs follow the event applies. No persuasive reason was shown to depart from that principle; accordingly the first respondents must pay the appellants' costs of this appeal as specified.
7 Jun 2017
The court awarded costs to YGFI for the High Court appeal on a 2B basis ($10,927) plus disbursements ($540) because the appeal was ultimately successful and would have prevented YGFI from paying levies based on a legally flawed District Court decision; the court declined to order costs for the District Court proceeding due to lack of authority and refused to award increased or indemnity costs for the Body Corporate's filing of liquidation proceedings, holding that any improper or unreasonable conduct in that separate proceeding should be addressed in the liquidation proceeding itself.
10 Nov 2015
The District Court Judge erred by failing to exercise the costs discretion in accordance with the Rules and relevant principles; the appellants were entitled to costs in the District Court which are to be assessed as category 1 band B, and are also entitled to costs on the appeal at the same rate; leave to bring the appeal out of time was granted due to minimal delay and no prejudice.
5 Oct 2015
The High Court allowed the appeal in part because the District Court failed to weigh the plaintiffs' prolonged pursuit of a meritless claim (and refusal to accept a Calderbank refund offer) against the defendant's defaults; that misapplication of discretion meant the indemnity costs award was unjustified and was quashed, while a modest costs award to the appellant for the formal proof and appeal was appropriate.
18 Nov 2014
Although ACC succeeded and sought substantial 2B costs, the court exercised its discretion under the High Court Rules to refuse to order costs because imposing a significant costs order on an impecunious litigant with longstanding psychological difficulties would be punitive and unlikely to serve deterrence; on balance of public and private interests costs were not ordered, while reserving the possibility of future costs orders if meritless litigation continues.
20 Nov 2013
Applying High Court Rules r14.15 and the court's general discretion, the court allowed a costs award for both Chens but reduced Mr Chen Junior's costs by 50% rather than disallowing them; the court ordered full payment of translation disbursements for both Chens, rejected any rule limiting recovery to two thirds, and declined to stay costs orders because no stay application was made.
13 Aug 2013
Time to appeal was extended but the appeal was dismissed because the District Court Judge was entitled to refuse costs given the appellant's prior agreement not to photograph the reserve, prior restraining order, the provocativeness and unnecessary nature of the 29 May photographs and the absence of necessity for further evidence; appellate court will not overturn that exercise of discretion.
21 Nov 2012
Because the defendant made offers that were close to the value of the judgment and otherwise acted reasonably, the court exercised its discretion under r14.11 to take those offers into account and ordered that costs lie where they fall; the plaintiff is not entitled to an award of costs.
30 Aug 2012
The plaintiffs are entitled to party and party costs for the strike-out application calculated under Rule 2B; the defendants' non-compliant costs memorandum was not read; the plaintiffs' partial use of counsel and litigant-in-person status do not preclude a costs award; a one day discount is appropriate for identified pleading deficiencies, producing a net award of $5,273.50.