Woodward v Woodward (No. 2)

The matter before the court involved an application for costs under the Civil Procedure Act 2005, section 99. The parties were the plaintiff, Woodward, and the defendants, also Woodward. The dispute centred on the costs incurred by the plaintiff due to an adjournment of the hearing, which arose because the defendants' solicitors did not file a notice of appearance or a notice of ceasing to act, and communicated to the plaintiff that they were acting on behalf of the defendants before withdrawing their representation 13 days before the hearing. The plaintiff sought an order that the defendants' solicitors pay their costs thrown away due to the adjournment.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the solicitors could be ordered to pay the defendants' costs under the Civil Procedure Act 2005, section 99. The court also needed to determine the apportionment of costs between the solicitors and the defendants. The court examined the conduct of the solicitors and the impact of their actions on the adjournment of the hearing and the plaintiff's costs.

The court found that the solicitors' conduct warranted an order for costs under the Civil Procedure Act 2005, section 99. The court noted that the solicitors had misled the plaintiff by communicating that they were acting on behalf of the defendants before withdrawing their representation, which directly caused the adjournment of the hearing and the plaintiff's costs. The court further held that the costs should be apportioned between the solicitors and the defendants, with the solicitors bearing a significant portion of the costs due to their misleading conduct. The court did not find it necessary to apportion any costs to the defendants, as their conduct did not contribute to the plaintiff's costs.

The court ordered the solicitors to pay the defendants' costs thrown away due to the adjournment of the hearing, and apportioned the costs between the solicitors and the defendants, with the majority of the costs borne by the solicitors. The court did not make any orders against the defendants as their conduct did not contribute to the plaintiff's costs.