The Court ordered that the defendant's costs of an abandoned interlocutory application be taxed and payable forthwith, rather than delayed until the conclusion of the proceedings. The plaintiff filed a second application to amend his statement of claim while the Court's decision on the first application was reserved, wholly abandoning the amendments sought in the first application. Applying the non-exhaustive factors identified in Woods v DCT (No 2) and endorsed in Weeding Party Hire v Salters (No 2), the Court held that the plaintiff's unreasonable conduct in abandoning a fully contested application, the discrete nature of the costs, the likely lengthy duration of the proceedings, and the possibility of further unmeritorious interlocutory applications warranted departure from the default rule that interlocutory costs are delayed until the conclusion of proceedings.
The full text is available to signed-in members.