4 Feb 2020
The application to set aside the statutory demand was dismissed because the proceeding was a substantive originating proceeding, not interlocutory; costs follow the event and respondent was entitled to costs on a 2B basis; no basis existed to reserve costs pending other proceedings.
11 Sept 2018
Costs of the appeal and the interlocutory District Court strike-out application are to be determined now under the Court's r20.19 powers; there are no special reasons to defer costs to the end of the substantive proceeding; r14.8(2) preserves the ability to vary earlier interlocutory costs orders (including if s43(2) later applies); award ordinary scale costs to the successful appellant; appellant entitled to $18,177.80.
5 Mar 2008
The court held that applications to preserve a caveat are not appropriately governed by summary judgment costs principles; because the defendant's steps to lapse the caveat obliged the plaintiff to seek preservation and thus caused extra costs, and because the defendant later consented avoiding a defended hearing, the defendant must pay the plaintiff's costs and disbursements assessed on a 2B basis.