Remely v. O'Shea

The case of Remely v. O'Shea involved an appeal by the applicant/appellant against a costs order made in the primary court. The appeal was dismissed, and the applicant/appellant sought to challenge the costs order, arguing that it was unjust due to a significant disparity in financial resources between the parties. The applicant/appellant had previously rejected a more favourable offer and pursued some hopeless contentions on appeal. The primary issue before the court was whether an order for indemnity costs should be made against the applicant/appellant given the circumstances of the case.

The court considered the applicant/appellant's argument that a disparity in financial resources justified a departure from the general rule regarding costs. However, the applicant/appellant provided no evidence to support this claim. The court also noted that the amount really in issue in the proceedings appeared to be less than $200. Given that the appeal was dismissed and the applicant/appellant had rejected a more favourable offer many months before the hearing, the court found that an order for indemnity costs was warranted. The court ultimately decided that the applicant/appellant should pay the respondents' costs of the appeal and the applications, assessed on the standard basis for the first respondent and on the indemnity basis for the second respondents.

The final orders of the court were that the costs order made on 4 April 2008 be vacated, and that the applicant/appellant pay the respondents' costs of the appeal and the applications, to be assessed on the standard basis in the case of the first respondent and on the indemnity basis in the case of the second respondents.