Event and Time
Event Description
- The case concerns an application in an appeal for the extension of time to file an application for costs related to a discontinued appeal involving parenting proceedings between Mr. Fegley (the applicant) and Ms. Salway (the respondent).
- The original ruling was made on 15 April 2016, with interim orders favoring the applicant.
Application and Claims
- The applicant seeks an extension of time to apply for costs after being informed of the respondent's Notice of Discontinuance on 6 February 2017, which had been filed on 25 January 2017.
- The applicant claims that this delay was minimal (two days) due to not being properly notified.
Judicial Decisions
- The court extended the time frame for the applicant to file the application for costs to 23 March 2017.
- The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs for the appearance but not for the application itself.
Dispute Points and Legal Basis
Dispute Points
- Applicant's Claims:
- The two-day delay in filing for costs is minimal and explicable. - The application for costs merits consideration as the respondent's appeal was unsuccessful. - The respondent’s failure to communicate the filing of the Notice of Discontinuance contributed to the delay.
- Respondent's Arguments:
- The applicant's application for costs lacks merit. - The respondent claimed that the applicant had assistance for legal fees from a third party, raising concerns about champerty. - The respondent contended that the applicant failed to accept reasonable settlement offers which signifies low merit for any costs application.
- Evidence and Reasoning:
- The applicant argued the necessity for costs due to the discontinued nature of the appeal and asserted that the failure to notify did not constitute reasonable notice. - The respondent referenced without prejudice letters suggesting that the applicant had been unreasonably obstinate in his rejection of settlement offers.