Letten v Templeton

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT THE COURT: 1 On 3 October 2014, the Court pronounced orders dismissing both the applicant's application for leave to leave to appeal and the respondents' notice to objection to competency. The Court reserved on the question of costs. The Court's preliminary view, without the benefit of argument from counsel, was that there should be an order that the applicant pay 75% of the respondents' costs, reflecting the issues on which the respondents failed. 2 Mr Strong, who appeared for the respondents, contended that they should have the whole of their costs by reason that there was a significant overlap between the issues ventilated on the applicant's application for leave to appeal and the issues raised by the competency objection. In the alternative he contended that if there were to be some discount for having failed on the competency objection, it should be not more than ten percent. In support, Mr Strong argued that the competency objection raised legal questions only for determination that did not require any further evidence to be adduced and the argument did not take up much of the hearing time. 3 Mr Waller QC who appeared for the applicant contended that the proposed order was appropriate because the competency objection did take up some time and diverted the attention and resources of the applicant. 4 As Mr Strong acknowledged, the issues raised by the competency objection only partially overlapped the issues for determination on the applicant's application. In the circumstances, we consider that it is appropriate to deprive the respondents of a portion of their costs. Ultimately it is a matter of evaluation and a discount of 25% is reasonably proportionate to the separate issues that required the Court's determination. I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justices Besanko, Davies and White.