Costs determined where proceedings were dismissed as misconceived and constituting abuse of process

The Court of Appeal, having previously dismissed the appellant's appeal, which challenged the High Court's review of a Legal Costs Adjudicator's determination, holds that the provisional costs order indicated in the principal judgment is appropriate, and accordingly award the costs of this appeal to the second respondent. The appellant's attempt to revisit final orders from earlier judicial review proceedings had been deemed entirely misconceived and an abuse of process. The Court of Appeal affirmed the provisional view that the second respondent, a retail partnership, should be awarded costs for the appeal, rejecting the appellant's contention that the Supreme Court's judgment in a previous unrelated case should influence the costs decision.