PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — plaintiffs are successful in a claim against two defendants in 2012 — corporate defendant is successful in a cross-claim against the plaintiffs — plaintiffs have their costs assessed from 2013 onwards but the cross-claimant refuses to have its costs assessed at the same time — plaintiffs obtain judgment in 2017 in the District Court on a costs certificate for $538,311.43 — plaintiffs seek to enforce the judgment against the defendants by commencing bankruptcy proceedings against the defendant in person — cross-claimant commences application for costs assessment in 2018 — both defendants then seek orders staying enforcement pursuant to s 135 Civil Procedure Act 2005 and/or “the inherent jurisdiction of the court”, as well as upon equitable principles of set-off — whether the District Court has jurisdiction to hear the application — whether proceedings should be transferred by the court of its own motion to the Supreme Court pursuant to ss 135 and 140 Civil Procedure Act — whether the defendants’ request to stay enforcement until further order, so that they can commence proceedings in the Supreme Court, should be granted — significant and inadequately explained delay by cross-claimant in seeking assessment of costs which is likely to continue — proceedings transferred to Supreme Court pursuant to ss 140 and 144 Civil Procedure Act.
