Tribunal Varies Costs From Indemnity To Ordinary Basis
⚖️ Legal holding
Costs should be awarded on the ordinary basis unless special circumstances exist.
📚 Full judgment
The summary, holding and questions above are VadeLab’s own material. The official decision itself is published by the court, and we do not reproduce it on this page.
📄 Read the full judgment⚖️ View on the official court website ↗
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The appeal was partially successful because the Tribunal did not provide adequate reasons for awarding costs on an indemnity basis.
- The appeal succeeded in part due to the lack of detailed reasoning explaining why costs should be awarded on an indemnity basis rather than the ordinary basis.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The appeal was unsuccessful in arguing that the case was so weak or hopeless that indemnity costs should be awarded.
- The appeal failed to prove that the proceedings amounted to an abuse of process, which could have warranted indemnity costs.
- The appeal did not succeed in showing that the respondent's conduct was unreasonable enough to justify indemnity costs.
- The appeal was unsuccessful in demonstrating that the respondent had engaged in serious misconduct justifying indemnity costs.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The appeal partially succeeded, changing the costs orders from being paid on an indemnity basis to the ordinary basis.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the costs should be awarded on an indemnity basis or the ordinary basis.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was partly for the person who brought the case, as the appeal partially succeeded.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, the decision means that costs should generally be awarded on the ordinary basis unless special circumstances exist.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify the evidence or documents that mattered.