Chesterman JA ordered indemnity costs against the applicant after dismissing his application for a stay of a Court of Appeal order under UCPR r 668(1)(b). The indemnity costs order was based on two grounds: the application was misconceived because the rule did not confer the power sought and its preconditions were not met, and the application was predicated upon facts the applicant must have known were wrong, including misrepresentations about what occurred during the appeal hearing.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.