1Under UCPR r 681, costs follow the event unless the court orders otherwise; a wholly successful applicant in a caveat removal proceeding will ordinarily obtain a costs order against the caveator.
2A respondent's reliance on hearsay rather than admissible evidence, failure to engage with a dispositive standing issue raised early in proceedings, and citation of non-existent case authority (a hallucinated case) are factors reinforcing the appropriateness of a standard costs order against that party.
3Claims for affirmative relief such as interim injunctions or personal costs orders against an executor, raised for the first time in costs submissions rather than by proper application, are not properly before the court and offend procedural fairness.
