Doyle v Houston (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This judgment concerns the costs arising from the Plaintiff's successful interlocutory injunction application restraining the Defendant's continuing trespass. The interlocutory injunction application was the subject of an earlier judgment dated 3 July 2025, which should be read alongside this ruling. The broader litigation context includes multiple related proceedings involving the Defendant, various judges, and previous judgments and orders spanning several years. The Defendant had reoccupied the Property contrary to court orders, prompting the Plaintiff's application for vacant possession and injunction relief.

The Defendant persistently challenged multiple judgments and orders and engaged in obstructive conduct throughout the proceedings, including refusal to comply with directions, delays in filing affidavits, and repeated attempts to relitigate issues previously decided. The Defendant also made serious but unsubstantiated personal attacks against the Plaintiff and her legal representatives. The Plaintiff sought costs on a legal practitioner and client basis, arguing that the Defendant’s conduct caused unnecessary and exceptional costs.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to her costs of the interlocutory injunction application.
2. If entitled, whether those costs should be assessed on the standard party and party basis or on the enhanced legal practitioner and client basis.
3. Whether the Court should assess the quantum of costs at this stage or defer assessment pending the outcome of pending appeals.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Plaintiff was presumptively entitled to costs as the successful party under the general principle that costs follow the event.
• The costs should be assessed on a legal practitioner and client basis due to the Defendant’s spurious, obstructive, and unrealistic applications which caused unexpected and unnecessary expense.
• The Plaintiff invited the Court to assess the quantum of costs but acknowledged that this could be deferred.

Defendant's Arguments

• The Defendant denied that the 3 July 2025 hearing was “to receive judgment” and asserted she was entitled to make submissions on the draft judgment circulated prior to that hearing.
• She contended that if successful on appeal, the Plaintiff would be liable for her costs.
• The Defendant submitted that the email circulating the unapproved judgment should have explicitly stated that the 3 July 2025 hearing was solely about costs.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court acknowledged the Plaintiff’s presumptive entitlement to costs as the successful party in the interlocutory injunction application. The Court carefully considered the Defendant’s conduct throughout the proceedings, including persistent failure to comply with directions, repeated delays, and a pattern of obstructive and vexatious behaviour. The Defendant’s conduct included gratuitous and serious personal attacks on the Plaintiff and her lawyers, without any evidential foundation, which amounted to an abuse of process.

Applying the principles from Trafalgar and related authorities, the Court found good reason to depart from the normal party and party costs basis and award costs on the enhanced legal practitioner and client basis. The Court identified specific conduct warranting this approach: the Defendant’s obstructive tactics, repeated attempts to relitigate resolved issues, and irrelevant personal allegations made from the bar. The Court noted that such conduct was of a particularly blatant and serious nature, causing prejudice and increased costs to the Plaintiff.

Regarding the Plaintiff’s request for assessment of the quantum of costs at this stage, the Court declined to do so. It noted the Defendant’s history of failing to comply with cost orders and the ongoing appeals and possible stay applications. The Court concluded it was more appropriate to defer detailed assessment until the outcome of the pending appeals is known, leaving open the possibility of interim relief.

Holding and Implications

The Court AWARDED the Plaintiff the costs of the interlocutory injunction application to be assessed on a legal practitioner and client basis. The costs are to be adjudicated in default of agreement, but the Court declined to assess the quantum of costs at this stage.

This decision directly affects the parties by imposing an enhanced costs burden on the Defendant, reflecting the Court’s disapproval of her conduct. The ruling does not establish new precedent but applies established principles to sanction obstructive and abusive litigation behaviour. The Court emphasized the importance of proper conduct in proceedings and the availability of enhanced costs as a sanction for serious procedural misconduct.