1Self-representation, genuine belief in the merits of a case, and the raising of arguable legal issues do not, without more, constitute special circumstances warranting departure from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event.
2The filing or intended filing of an appeal does not justify reserving the question of costs at first instance; the appropriate course is for the unsuccessful party to seek a stay of enforcement from the appellate court.
3A lump sum costs order under r 63.07(c) of the Supreme Court Rules 1987 (NT) is appropriate where taxation would generate expense disproportionate to the amount in issue, particularly where one party is self-represented, provided the amount fixed is logical, fair and reasonable on the material before the court.
Case Details
Citation[2026] NTSC 76
CourtNTSC
JurisdictionNorthern Territory
Unlock so much more with Barrister AI
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.
