8 Oct 2013
The applicants succeeded in obtaining an order setting aside the impugned decision and there was no material basis shown to reduce costs under r14.7(d); accordingly the respondents were ordered to pay scale costs and recoverable disbursements and witness expenses as claimed.
2 Jul 2009
Leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicants failed to establish a strongly arguable error of law: the arbitrator correctly interpreted the letter of 1 November 2006 as creating a labour only contract, his factual findings were supported by the evidence including Mr Nash's concession that the allowance did not cover full project management, and the alleged procedural complaints were matters for a set aside application rather than grounds for leave.
8 Dec 2005
The judge exercised discretion to award costs above scale but below full indemnity because the defendant had persistently failed to comply with orders and pursued successive challenges, thereby necessitating further proceedings, but subsequently complied promptly and had mitigating factors; accordingly an uplift was appropriate and a costs award of $3,300 including disbursements was made.
27 Sept 2005
The Court dismissed the application because it lacked jurisdiction to re-open the merits of the arbitral award, the requirements of the High Court Rules for entering the award as a judgment were complied with (service on 11 May 2005 satisfied r 899 and the Registrar properly entered judgment under r 900), and the application to set aside was brought outside the three month period in Article 34(3) with no allegation of fraud or corruption to remove the time bar.