COSTS — dispute concerning lease of residential premises — where principal issues centred around tenants’ entitlement to abatement of rent and termination of the lease for non-payment of rent — where tenants sought reinstatement of possession following termination — where status quo restored by decision of Walton J in September 2025 — where no practical utility in maintaining the proceedings which had effectively become spent — where costs of the proceedings the only remaining issue following plaintiffs’ proposal to discontinue — whether the plaintiffs should pay the costs of the proceedings — whether the Court should otherwise order
Quick Take
1Where proceedings become spent following interlocutory orders that effectively restored the status quo, the default position under UCPR 42.20(1) that a plaintiff pay the defendant's costs on dismissal applies unless the court orders otherwise; the mere fact that proceedings became inutile through passage of time does not displace that presumption.
2A tenant who unilaterally withholds rent pending determination of an abatement claim, thereby precipitating termination proceedings and subsequent litigation to restore possession, bears the costs risk of that litigation even where the tenant succeeds on a jurisdictional challenge to the termination orders.
3An offer of compromise made after proceedings have effectively been resolved by interlocutory orders has no meaningful comparator outcome against which to assess whether a party has achieved a more or less favourable result, rendering it ineffective for costs purposes.
