12 Aug 2022
Given the respondent's mixed success and that the successful points were simple and could have been advanced briefly, the Court exercised its discretion to award modest costs of 0.3 days totalling $717 rather than the $1,912 sought.
13 May 2022
Although the appellants were in significant and repeated default and their conduct was unsatisfactory, the belated payment of security for costs remedied the specific default and the interests of justice required the appeal to proceed on the merits; accordingly the Court declined to strike out the appeal but awarded costs for the step and imposed a strict timetable and limits on representation.
24 Aug 2021
The application for recall is dismissed because the second respondents cannot avoid the costs order by asserting a compartmentalised role where they effectively advanced the same positions as the first respondent and the issues (including s 299 and breaches of duty) were inextricably intertwined; the original costs order against the respondents stands.
28 Aug 2020
Because the appellant failed to appear on two occasions after unsuccessfully seeking non-lawyer representation and filed no opposition to the costs application, the Court exercised its discretion to award the Commissioner costs on a 2B basis in the sum claimed and disbursements, totaling $5,242.65.
8 May 2017
Items (i)-(iv) were more likely incurred for the review and are not payable as appeal disbursements; the Court accepts $650 disbursements claimed and, given appellant was represented when the appeal was filed and the sum claimed is not shown to be unreasonable, awards $500 for lodging the appeal, yielding a total award of $1,050.
6 Oct 2016
The interlocutory cost scale applies to strike-out applications; plaintiffs are entitled to full costs on a 2B basis of $10,348.00 and specific disbursements of $2,428.10 because the affidavit costs will form part of the substantive evidence and are not separately awarded; both plaintiffs are entitled jointly to the award despite only one filing submissions.
4 Aug 2016
The adjournment was declined because the trial had been scheduled nearly a year earlier, the proceeding had been on foot for two years, the applicant had ample time to prepare or seek legal aid, a further delay of up to a year would be unjust and prejudicial to the plaintiff and contrary to the public interest in efficient use of court resources, and the applicant could be accommodated at the scheduled hearing and rely on co-defendants' defences and pursue any indemnity claim later.
27 Apr 2016
The court awarded the appellants High Court scale costs because reliance on the Tribunal record does not justify discounting scale costs and the matter was of sufficient complexity; awarded costs calculated as 7.35 scale days at $2,230 per day plus agreed disbursements, totalling $17,743.00.
28 May 2014
The adjournment was refused because the costs orders against counsel were unrelated to the merits of the appeals, the appellants were not prejudiced by proceeding, and adjourning would cause unnecessary delay without altering counsel's position.
18 Dec 2012
The Court dismissed the strike-out application by consent and exercised its inherent jurisdiction to suppress publication of paragraphs 7, 12, 16, 19 and 20 of the Tribunal's 31 March 2010 decision because those adverse factual findings were peripheral to the issues before the Tribunal, were inadequately tested due to the applicant's representative consenting to late changes, and practical justice required suppression. The suppression was ordered on terms that it is final and conditional on the applicant not initiating any further proceedings relating directly or indirectly to the Tribunal de…