6 Jul 2016
The Registrar did not err: because the appellant was able to pay and the appeal itself did not engage public interest, and because the Registrar was not obliged to consider future unascertained liabilities, the application to waive the setting down fee was correctly refused.
19 Sept 2013
Costs should lie where they fall because both parties achieved mixed success on the preliminary issues, the questions had wider public interest implications under Tower's policy wording, and Tower was substantially wrong on a crucial point concerning valuation basis for replacement houses, justifying refusal of an order for costs under High Court Rules r 14.7(e).
29 Nov 2007
The Court found the plaintiff impecunious and, on the limited merits assessment at interlocutory stage, the plaintiff's claim was not strong and involved limited public interest; applying its discretion under r 60 the Court ordered security for costs of $20,000 to each defendant and stayed the proceeding until such security was provided, and awarded costs to the defendants.
12 Sept 2007
The application contained no public interest element and was essentially an attempt to appeal the Disputes Tribunal's merits decision; accordingly costs are awarded to the second defendant on a 2B basis and disbursements are to be fixed by the Registrar.
31 Aug 2007
The Society must pay scale costs at Category 2 Band B ($21,440); increased costs were refused because the case was not devoid of merit and no established basis for uplift existed; expert fees for two independent experts (Findlay and Pearson) met r 48H(2) and are recoverable ($4,237.86 total) but fees for the designer (Patterson) and the $1,600 for second counsel are not recoverable; filing fee $890 is awarded and photocopying/courier to be fixed by the Registrar if parties cannot agree.
18 Sept 2006
Although the court did not find established impecuniosity, weighing the significant public interest in the litigation, the inability to fairly assess merits at an early stage, the plaintiff's unchallenged offer of $3,000, and absence of compelling evidence of impecuniosity, the court exercised its discretion to refuse the third defendant's application for $10,000 security for costs.