17 Feb 2017
The review was dismissed because the related proceedings had been resolved by consent judgments rendering the stay applications and the question of further steps in the liquidation proceeding moot, so no relief could be granted on review of the Associate Judge's dismissal.
24 Aug 2016
Defendants adduced sufficient evidence (equivocal trust assurances, incomplete financial disclosure, historic bankruptcy and business failures) to establish a reasonable belief under r 5.45(1)(b) that the plaintiff might be unable to meet an adverse costs award; an adverse inference from the plaintiff's refusal to provide financial particulars was justified; the Associate Judge's exercise of discretion in ordering $30,000 security was not plainly wrong and was within the Court's broad discretion, therefore the review is declined and the Associate Judge's interlocutory orders stand.
19 Dec 2014
Defendants, as the successful party on review, were entitled to costs on a 2B basis covering both the original proceedings and the review; r 17.7 did not justify a reduction because pursuing two alternative grounds did not constitute unnecessary expense; quashing the Associate Judge's decision included quashing that Judge's costs order so costs for that stage are appropriate
31 Mar 2014
The Court found that the first defendant acted vexatiously, advanced meritless grounds in seeking review, disobeyed and ignored court orders and directions, and thereby caused unnecessary costs; accordingly indemnity costs of $19,630 were awarded to Mr Smith against Mr Penney, and increased costs (2B plus 25%) were awarded to Ms Simunovich against Mr Penney, with costs awards limited to costs incurred after 7 August 2013 and reasonable disbursements to Mr Smith to be resolved if necessary.
12 Dec 2013
The Associate Judge did not exceed jurisdiction or misapply the law in ordering limited security for costs; given the plaintiff's undischarged bankruptcy there were no reasonable grounds to believe he could pay adverse costs, and the Associate Judge properly exercised his discretion by awarding security limited to costs up to the statement of defence rather than the whole proceeding.
24 Oct 2012
Mr Peterson was entitled to test the Associate Judge's decision and did not act unreasonably in rejecting the Calderbank offer; costs were awarded to the Lucas parties on a category 2, band B basis for the review and strike-out applications, uplift was not justified, and Mr Peterson is entitled to 25% of his reasonable disbursements for attending the hearing to be fixed by the registrar if parties cannot agree.
21 Jun 2011
Court ordered specific security payments into court at Judicature Act rates; permitted detailed timetable and conditions for amended pleadings; imposed mutual unless orders striking pleadings for failure to comply with timetable; awarded BOSI its reasonable costs reduced from claimed quantum and ordered defendants jointly and severally to pay BOSI $12,133.50; awarded defendants costs on a 2B basis for review and extension applications, and awarded plaintiff 2B costs increased by 50% for the non-party discovery application; refused plaintiff's claim for indemnity costs overall and made no cost…
22 Jul 2010
On review the Court was prepared to examine the merits because the dispute was largely factual and would have rested on affidavits; having done so the Court found the plaintiff's claim had at best a modest chance of success, was undermined by her substantial financial position and by unnecessary allegations against her sister which caused the discontinuance; accordingly the presumption in r15.23 was displaced and costs were awarded to Ms Simpson and to the executors in specified sums.
7 Sept 2009
Applying the Dymocks factors the court concluded the balance of convenience favoured granting a stay of execution pending determination of the review because the review was bona fide, there was unchallenged evidence payment would cause hardship to the solicitor, third parties would not be prejudiced by a delay, and the interests of justice required a stay despite the general rule that a notice of review does not operate as a stay.
13 May 2008
The review was dismissed because the Associate Judge properly applied r 60(1)(b), the threshold of impecuniosity was met, relevant discretionary factors were considered and weighed appropriately (including prospects of success and risk of shutting out a genuine claim), and the $35,000 security order was within the permissible range and not plainly wrong or based on error of law.