22 Nov 2023
Because the appeal had been deemed abandoned for failure to comply with r 43(1) and the parties filed a joint memorandum recording settlement with respondents' consent to withdrawal, the Court declined the application for an extension of time and made no order as to costs.
18 Sept 2020
The Court held that the respondent was entitled to recover scale costs for issuing the bankruptcy notice and for opposing the set-aside application because (a) the email correspondence did not amount to a full and final settlement, (b) the respondent acted reasonably in issuing the notice after the judgment was sealed and after a demand was ignored, and (c) costs are assessed based on the reasonableness of the response rather than the size of the underlying judgment debt; accordingly the applicant was ordered to pay costs totaling $7,749.50.
8 Aug 2018
Costs were reserved until trial because the respective merits of the parties' positions could not be evaluated at the interlocutory stage and should be determined based on the outcome of the trial.
7 May 2018
Costs awarded on scale ($2,676) because the applicant filed and then abandoned the extension application on the eve of hearing in breach of timetabling; although there were arguable grounds for increased costs, no additional work was done after the respondent advised scale costs would be sought, so only scale costs were awarded.
17 May 2016
Court ordered payment of $35,781.90 from the independent solicitors' trust account to Body Corporate 81012, declined to order payment of interest from the fund, awarded costs to the Body Corporate of $17,500 plus disbursements $1,255 to be paid from the fund, ordered remaining trust funds to be paid to Mr Memelink, and granted leave to withdraw the adjudication application.
23 Apr 2015
There was insufficient specific evidence that Prestige held confidential information or breached r 8.7.1; indemnity costs were not justified, but because the application was withdrawn after the defendants changed solicitors, costs on a 2B scale were appropriate and ordered against Prestige.
8 May 2014
Costs should be split: costs and disbursements attributable solely to the discontinued summary judgment application are to be reserved until the substantive proceeding is resolved; all other costs and disbursements arising from the interlocutory applications are to be paid now, with parties to confer and submit a draft order or seek directions within 10 working days.
6 Mar 2014
The court declined to follow Re Peacock and held that receipt of payment of the principal debt does not automatically preclude a creditor from claiming costs unless the creditor has genuinely agreed to abandon the claim for costs; orders for adjudication and costs are not inconsistent and a creditor may withdraw the adjudication application while maintaining a claim for costs if it has not engaged to abandon that claim and has reserved its rights.
12 Dec 2012
The court applied the presumption that a withdrawing party should meet the costs of opposing parties and found the stay application had no real prospect of success and unnecessarily increased opponents' costs; defendants were awarded 2B scale costs for the steps claimed and a modest uplift of 15% was justified, but a 100% uplift was not supported by evidence and costs should not be reserved.
5 Oct 2012
Because the applicant withdrew the application and the caveat had no valid basis, the general rule that costs follow the event applies; having regard to the procedural history and respondent's pragmatic conduct a modest costs award of $2,000 is appropriate.