AAI Limited t/as AAMI v Phillips (No. 2)

The case of AAI Limited trading as AAMI v Phillips (No. 2) involved the plaintiffs, AAI Limited, seeking a review of a decision made by the SIRA MAS Review Panel. The matter was before the court, which was required to determine whether the defendant, Phillips, should be required to pay the plaintiffs' costs following their successful judicial review application. The dispute arose from the plaintiffs' challenge to the Review Panel's decision, with the primary issue being whether the plaintiffs were entitled to their costs under the circumstances of the case.

The court was tasked with examining the nature of the proceedings and whether the plaintiffs' success in obtaining relief was sufficient to warrant an award of costs. The court considered whether the plaintiffs' success in the judicial review was an exception to the general rule that costs follow the event, particularly since the proceedings were limited to one of two interrelated medical issues referred to the Review Panel. The court also explored whether the plaintiffs' success was moot until the other issue was determined, and if the plaintiffs obtained relief other than that which was sought in the summons. Additionally, the court examined whether the proceedings were inutile and if the defendant had exercised his right to seek a stay of the proceedings.

The court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to their costs as they successfully obtained relief due to an error of law by the administrative body. The court noted that the plaintiffs' success was not moot and was not by way of certiorari. The court also found that the plaintiffs' success was not inutile as the defendant did not exercise his right to seek a stay of the proceedings. The court further determined that the plaintiffs' success was not relief other than that sought in the summons. Consequently, the court ruled that the plaintiffs were entitled to their costs, and no certificate was granted to the defendant as the proceedings were by way of judicial review, not an appeal against a court decision.

The court ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiffs' costs of the proceedings, and no certificate was granted under UCPR r 36.16.