Thaler v Amzalak (No 3)

In Thaler v Amzalak (No 3), the primary dispute concerned the awarding of costs in a legal proceeding. The court was required to determine whether there should be any deviation from the standard rule regarding costs, specifically whether the successful party should be deprived of a costs order, and whether an indemnity costs order should be made against the unsuccessful party and a non-party. This decision was made in the context of a motion seeking an order against the non-party. The court also had to consider the admissibility of business records tendered as evidence, assessing whether the authenticity of the documents had been established under sections 69 and 70 of the Evidence Act 1995 and the Civil Procedure Act 2005.

The court examined the principles of cost allocation and the circumstances surrounding the case, including the conduct of the parties and the complexity of the litigation. It considered whether the successful party's conduct warranted a departure from the usual costs order and whether the non-party's involvement justified an indemnity costs order. The court concluded that the circumstances warranted a departure from the usual rule, leading to the granting of leave for the motion against the non-party. Additionally, the court found that the authenticity of the tendered business records had not been sufficiently established, rendering the documents inadmissible as evidence.

Following the reasoning, the court made an indemnity costs order against the unsuccessful party and the non-party, reflecting the complexity and the need for a fair outcome in the litigation. The court's decision underscored the importance of considering exceptional circumstances when determining cost orders and the admissibility of evidence. The final orders included an indemnity costs order against both the unsuccessful party and the non-party, highlighting the court's approach to cost management and the admissibility of business records in legal proceedings.