Marzol v Killen

In Marzol v Killen, the defendant applied to consolidate four related matters for the purposes of hearing. The plaintiff opposed the application, arguing that consolidation was not appropriate. The dispute centred around whether the plaintiff's opposition was reasonable and whether the plaintiff's attitude resulted in unreasonable expense or delay, thus warranting a costs order against the plaintiff. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the plaintiff should pay the defendant's costs associated with the notice of motion, and if the costs should be on an indemnity basis. The plaintiff also sought leave to rely upon additional medical reports, and the court had to decide whether this leave should be granted.

The court examined whether the plaintiff's opposition to consolidation was reasonable, considering factors such as the overlap between the matters and the potential for efficiency. The court considered whether the plaintiff's conduct led to unreasonable expense or delay, which could justify an order for the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs. The court also evaluated the plaintiff's request for leave to rely on additional medical reports and whether granting such leave would be appropriate.

The court ruled that the plaintiff's opposition to consolidation was not reasonable given the overlap between the matters, and that the plaintiff's conduct did cause unreasonable expense and delay. Consequently, the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the notice of motion, and the court determined that these costs should be paid on an indemnity basis. Additionally, the court granted the plaintiff leave to rely upon the additional medical reports as it found that such evidence was pertinent to the resolution of the case.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of the notice of motion on an indemnity basis and granted the plaintiff leave to rely upon additional medical reports.