Khoury v Sidhu

The matter before the Court was a consideration of the costs associated with two notices of motion filed by the parties in the case of Khoury v Sidhu. The first notice of motion was filed by the respondents on 1 June 2010, and the second was filed by the applicants on 12 July 2010, following the publication of the reasons of the Full Court. The applicants sought leave to issue a subpoena, directions for the filing and service of further affidavit evidence, and an order that the respondents pay the applicants' costs of the motion and the motion filed by the respondents on 1 June 2010. The respondents had previously been granted leave to amend their defence, with some exceptions. The applicants contested the leave to amend certain paragraphs, arguing that they did not provide a legally arguable ground for reducing the compensation awarded by the Court.

The court had to decide whether the applicants' costs of the motion dated 12 July 2010 should be taxed on an indemnity basis or whether the applicants should bear their own costs. The court also had to consider whether the respondents should pay the applicants' costs of and incidental to the notice of motion filed on 1 June 2010. The applicants argued that the respondents' proposed amendments to their defence did not provide a legally arguable ground for reducing the compensation awarded by the Court. The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the proposed amendments were relevant to the exercise of the Court's discretion as to whether the level of compensation awarded under s 87 should be reduced.

The court found that the respondents' proposed amendments to their defence were relevant to the exercise of the Court's discretion as to whether the level of compensation awarded under s 87 should be reduced. The court also found that the applicants' costs of the motion dated 12 July 2010 should be taxed on an indemnity basis, and that the respondents should pay the applicants' costs of and incidental to the notice of motion filed on 1 June 2010. The court made orders to this effect.

The court ordered that the respondents pay the applicants' costs of and incidental to the notice of motion filed on 1 June 2010, and that the applicants' costs of and incidental to their notice of motion dated 12 July 2010 be the applicants' costs in the cause. The court also ordered that the applicants' costs of the motion dated 12 July 2010 be taxed on an indemnity basis.