Sun v Pager

The case of Sun v Pager involved a dispute between Sun and Pager, where the primary issue was the imposition of costs related to an interlocutory application for a mandatory injunction. The application, which was ultimately not pursued, was considered by the court to be equivalent to final relief. The court had to determine whether the applicant, Sun, should be responsible for paying the costs of the motion, whether those costs should be on an indemnity basis, and whether they should be assessed as a gross sum payable immediately.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the principles governing costs in interlocutory applications, particularly in cases where the relief sought is akin to final relief. The court examined the precedent set by cases such as Vakauta v Kelly and the appropriate circumstances under which costs on an indemnity basis may be awarded. Additionally, the court considered whether the assessment of costs should be conducted as a gross sum and whether they should be payable forthwith.

The court found that the applicant should bear the costs of the motion as the application for a mandatory injunction was effectively final relief. Given the nature of the application and its equivalence to final relief, the court concluded that an indemnity costs order was appropriate. The court also ruled that the costs should be assessed as a gross sum and be payable immediately, aligning with the precedent set in cases such as Vakauta v Kelly.

The final orders of the court mandated that Sun pay Pager's costs of the motion on an indemnity basis, assessed as a gross sum and payable forthwith. This decision underscored the importance of considering the nature and effect of interlocutory applications when determining the appropriate allocation of costs.