The plaintiffs were ordered to pay Stennson's costs of the stay summons on an indemnity basis, fixed as a gross sum of $43,845.55. A finding of abuse of process in the substantive ruling supported indemnity costs, though such an order does not follow inexorably from an abuse finding and requires examination of the particular facts and circumstances (applying Abdou v Trowsdale (No 2) [2026] VSC 224). Attempts to relitigate the merits of the underlying stay order on a costs application were rejected as irrelevant, and alleged disentitling conduct must relate to the successful party's conduct in the proceeding at hand rather than collateral matters. The court confirmed that disaggregation of costs for mixed success is appropriate only in exceptional cases and declined to reduce costs where the unsuccessful issue consumed minimal hearing time and was not unreasonably raised.
The full text is available to signed-in members.