The Court declined to make a non-party costs order against the plaintiffs' solicitors (Gordon Legal) under r 63.23(1), holding that the case did not meet the 'clear case' threshold where the defective SEPA notice was prepared by a process server (not the solicitors), the Judicial Registrar below had found substantial compliance, and the legal issues were novel. The Court distinguished Muriniti v Kalil, holding that the general rule that personal costs applications should await the conclusion of proceedings does not apply where the application concerns costs of a distinct, concluded event (here, an appeal) rather than the merits of the substantive proceeding, and where the conflict of interest has already crystallised. Costs of the appeal were ordered against the plaintiffs on a standard basis, and the defendants were ordered to pay Gordon Legal's costs of the unsuccessful non-party costs application.
The full text is available to signed-in members.