11 Dec 2023
Defendants entitled to costs and disbursements totalling $44,636.71: 2B scale costs of $7,707.75 and disbursements of $8,060.64 for the recall and adjournment application, and wasted costs of $2,476.04 plus wasted disbursements of $26,392.28. The Court rejected a 50% uplift on scale costs and assessed wasted costs at 50% of the relevant expert engagement and related disbursements.
30 Nov 2023
Plaintiffs were entitled to costs; because the plaintiffs did not file a further memorandum after Woolford J's wasted costs decision and some claimed items were inappropriately framed as for an originating application, the court awarded costs in the amount claimed in the original memorandum, $19,949.00, rather than a higher adjusted figure.
22 Nov 2023
The respondent, as the successful party, was entitled to costs; the Court found items 11 and 12 reasonably incurred, allowed costs for the supplementary affidavit (item 36) as necessary to address new issues, disallowed costs on costs for the memorandum as to costs, and allowed three-quarters of a day for hearing time, resulting in a net award to the respondent of $11,512.50.
13 Oct 2023
Wasted costs are recoverable only to the extent they were directly thrown away by the vacating of the fixture; because the authorities in the 2 March 2023 bundle carried over to the 12 June 2023 hearing, the step for preparing the 2 March bundle was not wasted and must be excluded, and the remaining claimed items are reasonable, resulting in an award of $2,559.50.
19 Sept 2023
Costs lie where they fall because the plaintiffs acted within the High Court Rules, the preparatory work for the formal proof retained utility and was not truly wasted, and the likelihood of an application to extend time made the plaintiffs' preparation reasonably necessary; both parties share responsibility for failing to secure clarity on the timing of the defence.
17 Mar 2023
The fourth defendant was entitled to costs as the successful party but those costs were reduced by 25% because his amended statement of defence was inconsistent with his initial pleading (an unjustified about-turn) and because the first to third defendants' demand for an explanatory affidavit was unwarranted; no wasted costs award was made to the first to third defendants due to lack of particularised claim.
15 Nov 2022
The defendant's strike-out and summary judgment applications were declined because on the pleadings and affidavit evidence it is reasonably arguable the Security Sharing Agreement and associated documents could constitute a written guarantee or give rise to an obligation enforceable by the plaintiff under s 27(2) PLA; enforceability and issues arising from any assignment to SPH and trustee discretion raise factual and legal questions unsuitable for summary disposal and requiring discovery and full hearing. Security for costs was declined because the threshold belief of impecuniosity was not e…
12 Sept 2022
The defendants were entitled to a wasted costs award because the plaintiff could and should have sought an adjournment earlier and thereby avoided defendants' wasted preparation; the Court accepted the plaintiff had serious back pain but determined the defendants' assessed actual wasted costs of $5,285 should be reduced to two thirds, awarding $3,520 plus GST and debarring the plaintiff from prosecuting his substantive claim until that sum is paid, while declining to strike out the proceeding or bar opposition to summary judgment.
30 Aug 2022
Because the plaintiff sought and obtained vacation of the fixture the plaintiff must bear the costs of the adjournment; both parties shared responsibility for the earlier mention so those costs lie where they fall; given timing and inevitability of some duplication the judge awarded 50% of preparation for hearing costs and 33% of costs for preparation of briefs, authorities and the common bundle; an uplift under r14.6 was not justified; costs on the costs memoranda were disallowed except for sealing/enforcement disbursements.
25 Jul 2022
Leave to appeal was declined because the contested issues (expert dishonesty, admissibility/use of will‑say statements, and wasted costs) were interlocutory, required trial‑level determination on fuller evidence and oral testimony, and could not properly be resolved on the record before the Court; accordingly the High Court's refusal to make findings of dishonesty and its costs orders were not suitable for appellate intervention.