The Court of Appeal has ordered B. to pay half of Shawl Property Investments Limited’s costs of the High Court claim and counterclaim, along with half of the interim and interlocutory costs, to be taxed and ascertained. It made no order as to costs for the appeal.
The ruling, delivered on 30 July 2021, followed the court’s principal judgment in the appeal on 19 February 2021. B., a litigant in person, succeeded only in keeping one issue alive for determination at a plenary hearing. The court said she had not shown grounds to disturb or vary the High Court’s declaration that she and A. had no estate, right or title in the scheduled properties, or the permanent injunctions made against them.
A.’s appeal was struck out because he did not appear or communicate with the court. The High Court orders against him were affirmed, with costs payable to the respondent on a party and party basis when ascertained.
The court had proposed setting aside the High Court costs order against B. and instead ordering her to pay half of the respondent’s High Court costs, with no costs order for the appeal. B. objected, raising claims about the properties’ vesting in the official assignee after A.’s bankruptcy, an alleged data breach, and a receiver’s role. The respondent filed no submissions on costs.
The court rejected B.’s objections. It said there was no evidence that the official assignee had asserted an interest in the properties contrary to the mortgagee’s right to possession. It also found no data breach arising from the principal judgment, which it said was anonymised, and held that the earlier orders of Donnelly J. were relevant to the appeal. The court said the receiver had no current estate in the properties and that title issues were concluded.
In setting the costs, the court referred to the serious conduct it said had led to the proceedings, matters in affidavits to which B. had filed no replying affidavit, and the limited success on appeal. It described the conduct underlying the proceedings as involving forcible entry, the ejectment of lawful occupiers and licensees, and damage to or loss of property. The costs ruling did not determine the remaining stateable issue, which the court said was for the trial court.