Hooker v Gilling (No 2)

The appeal concerned the costs of proceedings between Hooker and Gilling. The appellant, Hooker, had been successful in reversing the orders of the lower court on appeal. However, this success was achieved through significant indulgence granted by the Court of Appeal. The primary dispute revolved around whether Hooker should be considered a "successful party" for the purposes of Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (UCPR) rule 42.1, which typically dictates cost orders.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine two principal issues. Firstly, whether the appellant, despite achieving a reversal of the lower court's orders, qualified as a "successful party" under UCPR 42.1, thereby entitling them to an award of costs. Secondly, the Court had to consider whether the appellant's legal representatives should be personally liable for the costs of the appeal, pursuant to section 99(1) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005.

The Court held that the appellant was not a "successful party" for the purposes of UCPR 42.1. It reasoned that the success was a result of considerable indulgence from the Court, indicating that the usual rule of awarding costs to the successful party could be departed from in these circumstances. Regarding the second issue, the Court found that the conduct of the appellant's legal representatives did not meet the threshold required by section 99(1) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 to warrant personal liability for costs.

Consequently, the Court confirmed the orders made on 1 May 2007.