Brooks v Zammit (No. 2)

The case of Brooks v Zammit (No. 2) involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Brooks, and the second defendant, Zammit. The case was heard in the May sittings of the circuit court at Mackay, where the primary issue was the basis on which costs should be awarded in the proceedings. The plaintiff had sought costs of an adjourned hearing, while the second defendant had sought costs of an application for additional evidence. The court was required to determine the appropriate costs to be awarded to each party.

The legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate costs to be awarded to each party in the proceedings. The court had to consider the costs of the adjourned hearing and the costs of the application for additional evidence. The court was required to decide whether the costs of the adjourned hearing should be thrown away or if the second defendant should be awarded costs for the application for additional evidence. The court also had to determine whether the second defendant should pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings on the indemnity basis.

The court held that the plaintiff should pay the second defendant's costs of the application to adjourn the trial and the costs of the application to adduce further expert evidence. The court held that the costs of the adjourned hearing should be thrown away. However, the court held that the second defendant should pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings on the indemnity basis, subject to the foregoing orders.

The court ordered that the plaintiff pay the second defendant's costs of the application to adjourn the trial and the costs of the application to adduce further expert evidence. The court also ordered that the second defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings on the indemnity basis, subject to the foregoing orders.