Read the full judgment text of DCEC 1592/2010 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 12 April 2012.
1. The 2 nd respondent by his summons dated 6 March 2012 (“the Summons”) applied for a variation of the costs order nisi in my judgment dated 29 February 2012 (“the Judgment”) whereby the 2 nd respondent was ordered to pay, in addition to the costs of the applicant, the 1 st respondent its costs of the action with certificate for counsel to be taxed if not agreed. The 2 nd respondent contended that the 1 st respondent’s costs should be solely borne by the applicant.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 3 cases