On appeal from an Associate Justice's refusal of interlocutory relief in judicial review proceedings challenging a costs assessment process, Dhanji J held that the primary judge erred in refusing leave to amend the summonses, as the amendments were largely confined to abandoning relief and at least some proposed orders complied with UCPR r 59.4. The primary judge also erred in finding no power existed to order discovery from the Manager of Costs Assessment in judicial review proceedings, as UCPR r 59.7(4) provided such power, but discovery was nonetheless refused on the merits because the documents sought were not relevant to any fact genuinely in issue. The application for a stay of the costs assessment was refused: while the primary judge wrongly overlooked s 66 of the Supreme Court Act as a source of injunctive power, the balance of convenience did not favour restraining the assessment given the imminent final hearing and the availability of statutory review mechanisms.
The full text is available to signed-in members.