The Supreme Court awarded the respondents the costs of opposing Keith Harrison’s application for leave to appeal, but made no additional costs order concerning his later application to set aside the Court’s refusal of leave or submissions in the costs application.
In a ruling dated 12 April 2021, the Court said it had already declined to grant leave and had also refused Mr Harrison’s application to set aside that determination. The ruling concerned only the costs of the leave application.
The Court recounted that Mr Harrison’s claim had been dismissed in the High Court and that his appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. After the Supreme Court refused leave, he applied to set aside its determination. He later filed submissions criticising decisions of other courts. The Court said those submissions should have been confined to costs and were improper.
The Court gave Mr Harrison an opportunity to respond appropriately to the respondents’ application for costs, but said he did not do so within the timeframe set. It decided it was unnecessary to ask the respondents to address the set-aside application or the improper submissions for the purpose of deciding costs.
Applying the ordinary rule that costs follow the event, the Court ordered the respondents’ costs of opposing the application for leave. It made no additional costs order concerning the subsequent application or the costs submissions. The ruling also said the Supreme Court had no role in addressing any costs awards made by the High Court or Court of Appeal.