|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court, in relation to the defendant's refused interlocutory motion seeking to have proceedings dismissed for being bound to fail and/or represent an abuse of process, makes an order for the plaintiff's costs, on the grounds that it was unreasonable for the defendant to have brought this application in circumstances where there was incomplete documentation and where this case required discovery, oral evidence and cross-examination.
Plaintiffs debtors - defendant creditor - costs of proceedings - court refused interlocutory application to have proceedings dismissed for being bound to fail and/or represent an abuse of process - Order 99, rule2(3) RSC - costs order shall be made - rather than be reserved - following enactment of LSRA 2015 O99 R2(3) was recast - court finds plaintiffs entitled to their costs - court notes this is an exceptional remedy - court unsatisfied as to the extent of documentation in court - case clearly requires discovery and requires oral evidence and cross-examination - application to dismiss should not have been brought - lay litigants in person - costs confined to allowable costs which are confined to expenses and outlay - court makes no order in relation to the costs of the motion to take up the DAR - court further suggests mediation.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
