14 Jul 2022
Despite the need to consider the child's best interests, the appellant's repeated relitigation and lack of evidence of inability to pay justified a costs award; the appropriate amount is limited to the sum paid under the appellant's legal aid grant, $8,360.11, awarded to the third respondent.
1 Apr 2022
The plaintiff was entitled to costs on the interlocutory application; legal aid status does not preclude an award and does not by itself justify reduction; concerns about double payment are addressed by repayment arrangements to the Legal Services Commissioner; no overall reduction for partial success or alleged unnecessary conduct was warranted; costs were fixed on a 2B scale at $9,918.50 with reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the registrar and capped at amounts actually charged to the Legal Services Commissioner.
1 May 2019
The Court had jurisdiction under the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules to award costs in these extradition and related judicial review proceedings; a legally aided appellant has incurred a recoverable liability to the Legal Services Commissioner under the Legal Services Act 2011 and may recover costs paid by the Commissioner; public interest and comity did not outweigh the ordinary rule that the unsuccessful party pay costs; quantum limited to the lesser of Court of Appeal scale costs and the amount paid by Legal Services for the appeal.
22 Aug 2018
The Family Court judge erred by failing to take into account the Legal Services Act 2011 recovery provisions (which permit the Commissioner to recover the full amount paid by legal aid from any costs award) and therefore adopted a wrong approach and disregarded a material factor; the High Court allowed the appeal and remitted the costs matter to the Family Court for rehearing with directions that the recovery provisions and any waiver be taken into account.
14 Feb 2018
Respondent, having wholly succeeded on appeal, was entitled to category 2B costs limited to the actual legal aid costs incurred of $18,749.34; the Court ordered release of $2,230 security and required the appellant to pay the balance of $16,519.34.
6 Jul 2015
Although the defendant succeeded at both interlocutory and substantive stages and is entitled to costs, the defendant's persistent and unexplained non-compliance with comprehensive timetabling orders justified a 50% reduction of any otherwise assessed 2B scale costs for the pre-legal-aid period; the legal aid grant for the later period is recoverable in full, producing a total award of $14,129.10 in the defendant's favour.