Where respondents to an appeal have conflicting interests as creditors of the same entity — one representing unsecured creditors and another claiming secured creditor status — it is not unreasonable for them to maintain separate representation, and each is entitled to recover separate costs from the unsuccessful appellant. The risk that a single lawyer might face a conflict of duty is sufficient to justify separate representation, even where the respondents are united in opposing the appeal.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 4 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.