3 Dec 2021
The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is dismissed because none of the statutory criteria in s 74 of the Senior Courts Act 2016 are met and there is no proper basis to reopen litigation that has been finally resolved.
18 May 2020
Costs were refused because the active defendants had communicated to the Court and to the plaintiff in August 2019 that they would not seek costs if the plaintiff discontinued; the plaintiff relied on those communications, had been a litigant in person with documented difficulties, the defendants took no further steps in the High Court, and justice did not require allowing the defendants to resile from their earlier position.
17 Feb 2020
The court held that the first respondent, although a litigant in person, was entitled to recover reasonable disbursements proven or demonstrably incurred; after rejecting or reducing unsupported claims (notably non-lawyer reader/writer fees and inadequately itemised legal invoices) and applying a holistic assessment the court awarded the respondent $1,415.22 and declined to award costs to the applicants on the discontinuance.
15 May 2019
The Court granted extensions of time because, applying Reekie, the interests of justice favored treating the applicant's October 31 application as extant given (1) the applicant was a litigant in person warranting latitude, (2) the default was short (approximately one week) and excused by illness, and (3) there was no demonstrated prejudice to respondents; the applicant was ordered to file supporting materials by a fixed date and the extension to seek allocation of a hearing date was granted conditionally on diligence if dispensation is obtained.
9 May 2019
The court held that the fact a successful party was unrepresented should not be taken into account when assessing the reasonableness of expert witness costs; any change to permit such consideration is a matter for legislative or rule reform, and Brewer J's reductions to the District Court disbursements award were a correct application of r14.12 and are upheld.
20 Mar 2019
The invoice for legal advice was directly incurred for the purposes of the appeal and is an allowable disbursement; the valuation report related to the Family Court hearing and was not part of the High Court appeal so is not recoverable; court scheduling fee, photocopying, stationery and postage are recoverable (subject to verification and reasonableness); personal time claims are not recoverable; parking was reduced as disproportionate (10 trips awarded). On that basis disbursements totaling $1,310.00 were awarded to the appellant.
1 Sept 2017
A litigation guardian acting as a litigant in person is not entitled to an award of costs because none of the narrow exceptions to the general rule applied (no selfless public-interest litigant, no expert-like assistance to the court, and the lawyer-litigant exception is abrogated); accordingly costs lie where they fall and no disbursements are ordered at the applicant's request.
20 Feb 2017
The plaintiff, a litigant in person, is not entitled to an award of costs for the review application absent extraordinary circumstances; his refined discovery request on review and limited voluntary disclosure by defendants does not negate the Associate Judge's earlier finding that the original application was deficient, so the Associate Judge's costs award stands and will not be set aside.
26 Jan 2016
Security for costs of $15,000 was ordered because on the material before the Court the plaintiff is likely unable to pay costs if unsuccessful (unpaid prior orders, weak pleadings, lack of disclosure and unresolved standing), and it was just in all the circumstances to require a reasonable security while interlocutory steps and repleading occur.
10 Mar 2015
The defendant, as the successful party on summary judgment and strike-out and in opposing the plaintiffs' summary judgment, is entitled to costs on the usual basis; scale costs were fixed at category 2 with part of preparation assessed at category C because the plaintiffs (litigant in person) filed multiple lengthy affidavits and amendments that required substantial additional response work, resulting in total costs of $18,706 awarded to the defendant.