Sergi v Sergi (No 2)

The plaintiffs in this case filed a Notice of Motion seeking summary judgment against the defendants in a property dispute. The application was subsequently adjourned, and the parties ultimately agreed that the Notice of Motion should be dismissed following leave being granted for the filing of an Amended Defence and Amended Cross-Claim. The court was required to determine whether either party acted unreasonably in prosecuting or defending the summary judgment motion and whether a specific cost order should be made for the defendants' non-compliance with a Court order.

The court found that neither party acted unreasonably in prosecuting or defending the summary judgment motion. The plaintiffs had a reasonable basis for seeking summary judgment, and the defendants' decision to file an Amended Defence and Amended Cross-Claim was not unreasonable given the circumstances. The court also found that the defendants had not acted unreasonably in non-compliance with a Court order, as the order in question was not a clear and unambiguous direction to file an Amended Defence and Amended Cross-Claim within a certain timeframe. As such, the court declined to make a specific cost order for the defendants' non-compliance with the Court order.

Each party was ordered to pay its own costs, reflecting the court's view that neither party acted unreasonably in prosecuting or defending the summary judgment motion. The court's decision highlights the importance of parties acting reasonably in the prosecution and defence of interlocutory applications, even in cases where the application is ultimately resolved without a determination on the merits. It also underscores the need for clear and unambiguous directions from the court to avoid disputes over compliance with Court orders.