24 Mar 2021
Respondents awarded costs on a Category 2 Band B basis reduced to exclude costs for the 8 December 2020 listing and for preparation of the appellant's case; no uplift awarded because delays were minor and explained, the appellants' grounds were arguable so rejection of a near-full settlement offer was reasonably justified; total costs $13,145 with disbursements $50.
9 Mar 2020
The respondent, as the successful party, is entitled to costs on a category 2B basis; the appellant did not succeed to any material degree so no reduction is justified; although the appellant's submissions were filed late this did not materially increase the overall costs and therefore no uplift is awarded.
11 Apr 2017
Davison J's clear order that non-provision of the ordered security for costs results in a stay must be given effect; the stay is maintained and a short unless order to file remaining affidavits is reasonable; it is inappropriate to direct the Registrar to sign a mortgage over trust property without evidence and opportunity for the co-trustee to be heard; indemnity costs for the withdrawn subpoena were not justified but a schedule 2B award is warranted.
21 Oct 2014
Indemnity costs denied because counsel failed to identify applicable r14.6 subparagraph and claimants failed to prove actual reasonable indemnity quantum; delays were not solely caused by plaintiff and access to confidential affidavits was unresolved by the parties; proceedings categorised as category 2B with 3.9 days at $1,990/day plus 25% uplift resulted in a costs award of $9,701.25 in favour of H and J Lodhia and Nair & Chen; costs of voluntary discovery declined because no court order and insufficient quantification of expenses.
8 Dec 2005
There was no binding agreement on costs (the court had reserved costs); the defendant breached timetable obligations and did not appear to defend, effectively abandoning the defence; accordingly the plaintiff was entitled to costs: category 2A for commencement and category 2B for all other steps including the costs application, plus specified disbursements.
15 Sept 1997
The appeal was struck out because the appellant repeatedly failed to comply with the court timetable, did not file required submissions or provide any acceptable explanation, and the resulting delay was inordinate and inexcusable.