Hookey v Whitelaw

Hookey v Whitelaw involves a dispute between the appellants and the respondents, who were parties to an earlier appeal that was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. The respondents have now applied for an order that the appellants pay their costs of the application to adduce further evidence and the appeal itself, to be assessed on the indemnity basis. The appellants did not make any submissions on the application for costs. The court was required to determine whether the costs should be awarded on a party to party basis or an indemnity basis.

The legal issue before the court was the appropriate basis on which to assess the costs of the application and the appeal. The court considered relevant authorities and principles governing the assessment of costs in civil proceedings, particularly the distinction between party to party costs and indemnity costs. The court noted that indemnity costs are typically awarded where the party seeking costs has been successful on the merits of the case and the other party's conduct was unreasonable, oppressive, or vexatious. The court also considered the fact that the appellants had not made any submissions in response to the application for costs, which could be taken into account in determining the appropriate basis for assessing costs.

The court found that the respondents were entitled to indemnity costs. The court noted that the appeal had been dismissed, and the application to adduce additional evidence was made in the course of the appeal. The court considered that the respondents had been successful on the merits of the case, and the appellants' conduct in pursuing the appeal and the application for additional evidence was unreasonable and vexatious. The court also noted that the appellants had not made any submissions in response to the application for costs, which supported an order for indemnity costs. The court held that the respondents were entitled to their costs of and incidental to the appeal, including the costs of the applications to adduce additional evidence, assessed on the indemnity basis.

The court ordered that the appellants pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the appeal, including the costs of the applications to adduce additional evidence, assessed on the indemnity basis. The court did not make any orders in relation to the costs of the respondents' application for indemnity costs.