13 Oct 2023
Wasted costs are recoverable only to the extent they were directly thrown away by the vacating of the fixture; because the authorities in the 2 March 2023 bundle carried over to the 12 June 2023 hearing, the step for preparing the 2 March bundle was not wasted and must be excluded, and the remaining claimed items are reasonable, resulting in an award of $2,559.50.
15 Jun 2022
The Judge found the defendant has a substantial ground of defence (a genuine dispute whether the loan was with the director personally or the trust) that requires substantive determination; although the defendant's delay was not reasonably explained, the plaintiff would not suffer irreparable injury if the defendant pays the plaintiff's costs and disbursements for the delay; accordingly leave to file a statement of defence is granted on terms (payment of costs/disbursements within 10 working days; filing timetable for defence and reply).
29 Sept 2020
Applicants were successful in obtaining leave to file a statement of defence and are entitled to costs; the grant of leave was not an indulgence; costs are assessed on a category 2 basis for the leave application; a 50% uplift on scale is justified for the applicants because the plaintiff advanced unmeritorious, merit‑independent arguments and pursued a tactic that verged on abuse of process and forced attendance by the other defendants; defendants who attended are awarded costs (without uplift); claim for costs on costs disallowed.
9 Jun 2020
Leave under r 5.51(3) was granted because an appearance reserving rights is not an admission nor irrevocable, the applicants acted promptly once adverse steps were taken, their proposed defences are bona fide and not evidently vexatious or abusive, there is no prejudice to the plaintiff and denying leave risks a miscarriage of justice; therefore the applicants are entitled to file and serve statements of defence.
4 Apr 2019
Leave to file a statement of defence was granted because the second defendant articulated an arguable defence that puts the plaintiffs to proof, the explanation for delay (counsel error) was accepted and the plaintiffs would not suffer irreparable injury from permitting a defence; delay alone was not fatal and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs on a 2B basis.
19 Dec 2017
Leave to file a notice of opposition and statement of defence was granted because the delay was short, a satisfactory explanation was provided, and the plaintiff would not suffer prejudice, so the interests of justice required granting leave and adjourning the summary judgment application.
24 Feb 2011
Leave to file the counterclaim was granted because the insurance policy and bank account claims involve common parties and arise from the trustees' actions, are sufficiently related to justify hearing together, present no obvious prejudice that cannot be managed, and efficiency and interests of justice favour consolidation despite potential limitation issues.
5 Aug 2009
The statutory demand was not set aside and was not complied with within the prescribed time, creating a rebuttable presumption of insolvency; the respondent remained a creditor because no binding compromises discharged the debt in full and at best reduced it to $4,000 which was unpaid; the applicant failed to demonstrate an arguable defence or solvency and therefore special leave under r31.20 must be refused.
21 Jan 2009
A stay of the liquidation proceedings was required to protect the defendant's right to have the earlier refusal of leave reviewed; accordingly a stay until further order was granted despite the late filing, but the defendant was ordered to pay costs for the hearing due to breach of timetable and non‑compliance, and the plaintiff is entitled to actual and reasonable costs for the special leave application to be quantified under the court's procedure.
29 Apr 2008
Leave to file the late statement of defence was refused because the defendant failed to show an arguable defence, produced no evidence of solvency, offered no explanation for delay and would prejudice the plaintiff; accordingly the company was insolvent and an order for liquidation was made.