The Court declined to award indemnity costs against a self-represented plaintiff who maintained proceedings against a wrongly named defendant, finding that his mistaken belief that the defendant needed to remain a party because it was named in NCAT documents did not constitute wilful disregard of known facts. The Court also declined to make a Bullock order against the third, fourth and sixth defendants, finding that it was the Court's exchanges with the plaintiff — not the late-filed evidence of those parties — that led the plaintiff to consent to the removal of the second defendant. Costs were ordered on the ordinary basis.
The full text is available to signed-in members.