Spence v Leitch

In Spence v Leitch, the plaintiff sought to recover costs after a hearing was vacated due to the plaintiff's solicitor being granted leave to cease acting in the case. The hearing was vacated through no fault of the defendants. The court was tasked with determining whether the costs thrown away or occasioned by the vacated hearing should be borne by the defendants or the plaintiff. The plaintiff argued that the costs should be borne by the defendants, while the defendants contended that they should not be liable for the costs incurred by the plaintiff's decision to cease acting.

The court examined the circumstances leading to the hearing being vacated and the implications of the plaintiff's solicitor ceasing to act. It considered the legal principles governing costs in such situations, particularly where a party's actions have led to a hearing being vacated. The court concluded that where a hearing is vacated through no fault of the defendants, and the costs thrown away or occasioned by the vacated hearing are due to the plaintiff's decision to cease acting, those costs should be borne by the defendants. This decision was based on the principle that the party responsible for the hearing being vacated should bear the costs associated with it.

The court's reasoning was that the defendants were not at fault for the hearing being vacated, and the costs incurred were a direct result of the plaintiff's decision to cease acting. Therefore, the court ruled that the defendants should bear the costs thrown away or occasioned by the vacated hearing. The court vacated the hearing and ordered that the costs thrown away or occasioned by the vacated hearing were to be the defendants' costs in the cause.