Conder v Silkbard

The appeal in *Conder v Silkbard* concerned a dispute over legal costs. The appellant, Conder, sought to recover costs from the respondent, Silkbard. Silkbard had requested a bill of costs from Conder. The central issue before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in exercising their discretion to stay proceedings pending the delivery of an adequate bill of costs.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the trial judge had provided adequate reasons for their decision to stay the recovery proceedings. This involved an assessment of whether the trial judge had properly considered all relevant factors and applied the correct legal principles when exercising their discretion.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had not provided adequate reasons for the stay of proceedings. The court emphasised the importance of providing clear and sufficient justifications for such discretionary orders. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.