The Court declined to make a costs order in favour of either party on the substantive application to set aside a creditor's statutory demand that was withdrawn by consent before a merits hearing, applying the Lai Qin principle that where neither unreasonableness nor near-certain success can be established without a merits determination, costs should lie where they fall. However, the Court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of the unsuccessful costs application itself, on the basis that costs follow the event of that discrete application.
The full text is available to signed-in members.