Starr v Appleton

Starr brought an application in the Land Court against Appleton, seeking an order for costs pursuant to section 34 of the Land Court Act 2000. Starr had previously been unsuccessful in an application for a rehearing of his matter, pursuant to section 12 of the Act. Starr argued that the Land Court should make an order for costs against Appleton, as the costs of the unsuccessful application for a rehearing should be borne by Appleton. Appleton opposed Starr's application for costs, contending that Starr's application was not a frivolous or vexatious proceeding and that the application for a rehearing had been properly considered. The court was required to decide whether Starr's application for costs should succeed and, if so, whether an order should be made pursuant to section 34 of the Act.

The court considered the factors to be taken into account in deciding whether an order for costs should be made. It noted that the decision to grant an order for costs was discretionary and that the court should consider the overall conduct of the proceeding, the merits of the case, and whether the proceeding was frivolous or vexatious. The court found that Starr's application for a rehearing had not been frivolous or vexatious and that the application had been properly considered by the court. It found that the application for costs was not successful and that there were no grounds for an order for costs to be made. The court concluded that the application for costs should be dismissed.

The court dismissed Starr's application for an order for costs. The determination of the issue of costs was adjourned by paragraph 5 of the order dated 1 May 2009, and the court determined that there should be no order as to costs.