Mendonca v Tonna

In *Mendonca v Tonna*, the appellant sought a costs capping order in relation to an appeal. The respondent sought to have the appeal dismissed. The matter came before Basten AJA.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellant had demonstrated sufficient grounds to justify the making of a costs capping order. This involved considering the threshold for such an order, particularly the need to show a reason to anticipate disruptive or obstructive conduct by the other party, as opposed to merely seeking protection from the reasonable costs of an unsuccessful appeal. A secondary issue concerned the appellant's application for an extension of time to appeal certain interlocutory orders made in the working out of a final judgment.

Basten AJA dismissed the appellant's application for a costs capping order, finding that the appellant had not established the necessary grounds to anticipate disruptive or obstructive conduct by the respondent. The court reasoned that the purpose of a costs capping order is to protect a party from unreasonable costs arising from such conduct, and that the appellant's concerns did not meet this threshold. The court also noted that challenges to orders made in the working out of a final judgment are generally considered interlocutory.

The court ordered that the appellant's notice of motion seeking a costs capping order be dismissed. So much of the appellant's amended notice of motion as sought an extension of time to appeal interlocutory orders was stood over to the hearing of the appeal. Finally, the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the motion filed on 15 November 2024.