At the outset, in its submissions on the original interlocutory applications heard in this matter, Trink Tank reserved the right to make further submissions on costs once the Court had made its interlocutory ruling. I failed to give them that opportunity before making costs orders. In all the circumstances, Trink Tank should be afforded that opportunity.
I have had the advantage of written submissions, oral submissions, and authorities from both parties. Nothing I have heard satisfies me that it is appropriate to set aside the orders made 24 June 2025.
My reasoning set out in the reasons published on 24 June 2025 remain.
It follows that Trink Tank's interlocutory application filed 30 June 2025 is dismissed.
Trink Tank is to pay Bickford's costs of and incidental to the interlocutory application on a party-party basis in any event.
[4]
I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice O'Sullivan.