| Summary |
COSTS – Unsuccessful investigation and determination of restraint of trade claim by applicant (“first claim”) – After investigation, applicant’s breach of confidentiality claim (“second claim”) dealt with by telephone conferences and meeting with Authority - Second claim withdrawn – Respondent sought full indemnity of costs $17,945 and disbursements $688.54 – Respondent argued warranted in instructing counsel as faced claim in excess of $200,000 – Argued incurred reasonable costs because first claim involved complex legal issues and second claim involved documentary disclosure and inspection – Alleged claims lacked merit – Alleged respondent deliberately damaged applicant’s reputation– Applicant accepted modest contribution to costs appropriate – Applicant claimed costs awards not to punish or reward – Claimed costs should lie where they fall for second claim as was after investigation meeting – Authority found applicant’s submission regarding damage to reputation not relevant to costs – In first claim, no unusual features to warrant departure from usual costs approach – Full indemnity costs not appropriate – Authority’s “standard” approach to costs not inflexible – Facts merited higher than usual award for half day matter – Considering high costs incurred, respondent awarded $3,000 for applicant’s first claim – Found second claim able to attract costs award because formed early part of its investigation – Partial investigation capable of attracting costs award – Second claim involved 4 telephone conferences, written submission and short attendance at meeting - $1,000 awarded to applicant for costs for respondent’s second claim |