4 Jul 2019
Because the respondent's opposition lacked significant merit in light of the governing Supreme Court authority that solicitor error, limited delay and no prejudice warrant extensions, and because the respondent withdrew opposition, the respondent's costs claim was declined and the respondent was ordered to pay the appellant $750 for costs.
22 Aug 2017
Because the notice of appeal was filed in time but served seven working days late due to solicitor error, the applicants applied promptly, the respondents identified no substantial prejudice, and Almond v Read directs that short solicitor‑error delays should generally be excused unless the proposed appeal is clearly hopeless, the Court granted the extension and awarded standard band A costs to the applicants.
10 Apr 2008
Costs were declined because the need for the ex parte injunction arose from the applicant's solicitors' error in sending their file to the respondent; the respondent acted reasonably, returned the file promptly via her solicitor and complied with the order, so it would be inappropriate to award costs to Cool Moves.
19 Dec 2005
Special leave to appeal was granted because the delay was minimal (part of a day), caused by an arithmetical error by the applicant's solicitor, caused no prejudice to the respondent, and the proposed appeal was not hopeless but contained seriously arguable points; in the interests of justice an extension of time was warranted, with a modest costs award against the applicant.