High Court, in supplemental judgment following application by the Commission for Communications Regulations (ComReg) against a telecommunications company, determines, inter alia: (a) that the company, having failed to address the court at hearing on a 'Step Plan' concerning the processing of seized data, could not address the court on the contents of the plan after delivery of the principal judgment; (b) makes certain directions concerning the Step Plan; (c) awards the costs of the proceedings to ComReg, notwithstanding that the court application was required under the legislation, on the grounds that the company had chosen to oppose the application and was involved in the litigation process; and (d) despite an earlier agreement that the costs of a stenographer be split 50:50 between the parties, the costs should be borne entirely by the losing party, on the grounds that it was an implied term of any such agreement that it be subject to the costs order of the court.
Costs of legal proceedings - award of costs to one party - effect on agreement that costs of stenographer be split 50:50 - whether losing litigant to pay all costs of stenographer at conclusion of case - other matters arising from first judgment - decision of company not to engage in 'Step Plan ' - approval of Step Plan by court - whether defendant had 'second bite of the cherry' to address content of Step Plan - processing of 'seized data' - whether company entitled to provide ComReg with search terms to remove irrelevant material - requirement of ComReg to make court application - whether company should be liable for costs in respect of required application - 'test' case.