8 Nov 2021
Although the appellant succeeded in reducing the summary judgment in part, that success was in part dependent on evidence not adduced in the District Court; balancing the limited success and conduct of the parties leads to the conclusion that costs should lie where they fall; therefore no order as to costs is made.
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.
18 May 2010
The court held that the high threshold for indemnity costs was not met because the applicant advanced an arguable claim based on alleged prior knowledge and implied consent under s 105, supported by the director's evidence; the applicant's conduct did not amount to the flagrantly bad behaviour required for indemnity costs. Accordingly indemnity costs were declined but respondent was entitled to ordinary costs on a 2B basis up to and including the hearing and for specified post-judgment memoranda.
22 Oct 2009
Appeal allowed in relation to discovery because plaintiffs subsequently provided an appropriate authority for release of medical and ACC records covering the relevant period (1986-1993), rendering further orders unnecessary and warranting setting aside the High Court costs order; appeal against ordering security for costs dismissed because on assessment the claim was not so weak as to justify substantial security that would likely prevent trial and plaintiffs' conduct, while problematic, did not justify departing from ordinary security principles.