Muriniti v Kalil

In *Muriniti v Kalil*, the Court of Appeal considered applications for stays of costs orders made by the District Court. The applications concerned both the ongoing costs assessment process and any anticipated award that might arise from that process.

The Court was required to determine whether to grant a stay of the District Court's costs orders. Specifically, it had to consider whether a stay of the costs assessment process itself was warranted, and separately, whether a stay of any future award from that assessment should be granted.

Regarding the stay of the costs assessment process, the Court refused the application. It reasoned that a stay would halt an already well-advanced process, and that restitution would be available for any costs incurred during the assessment should the appeal be successful. However, the Court granted a stay of any anticipated award from the costs assessment. This was because enforcement of such an award was likely to cause considerable inconvenience and financial stress, and any risk of non-recoverability could be resolved by an undertaking, with no evidence of hardship presented by the respondent.

Consequently, the Court ordered that the enforcement of any award made by a costs assessor or review panel be stayed until the hearing of the application for leave to appeal. The costs of this application were made costs in the application for leave to appeal.