The Court awarded indemnity costs in respect of the defendant's summary dismissal motion and the plaintiff's two motions to amend, on the basis that Justice Ierace's findings that the claim was fundamentally flawed justified departure from the ordinary costs basis. However, the Court declined indemnity costs for the Vexatious Proceedings Act motion, holding that applications under that Act have significant consequences and defendants should typically be allowed to resist such orders without costs consequences beyond the ordinary basis. The Court also declined a gross sum costs order where indemnity costs were awarded on only some motions, and refused to stay the Vexatious Proceedings Act orders or costs orders pending appeal, characterising the VPA orders as protective and noting no actual appeal had yet been filed.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.