4 Mar 2008
MARANATHA LIMITED, UPSON & HICKMAN V TOURISM TRANSPORT LIMITED HC AK CIV 2006-404-006431
- Citation
- openlaw-0697729b_e7b4_41ff_a391_3cf49b0427b0.pdf
- Court
- High Court
The court held that the defendant was entitled to costs for both interlocutory applications because the plaintiffs had no proper basis to use the inadvertently disclosed confidential information and the defendant legitimately sought court protection; however the plaintiffs' conduct did not justify indemnity costs for the second application, so costs were awarded on Category 2B with a 50% uplift for both applications and the defendant was entitled to its claimed disbursements.