Following the dismissal of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the court determined the appropriate costs award.
The dispute involved a commercial claim for damages arising from an allegedly faulty communications system supplied by the defendant, with the motion seeking to limit the plaintiff’s potential recovery through contractual provisions.
The defendant argued that costs should be reduced due to the plaintiff’s non-compliance with a scheduling order and alleged duplication of legal work between counsel and instructing solicitor.
The court held that no prejudice arose from the procedural irregularities and rejected the duplication argument, emphasizing the value of briefing specialized advocacy counsel.
Partial indemnity costs of the motion were awarded to the plaintiff in full as claimed.