Gunn J
IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE C
RULING AS TO COSTS
17.2 ...the correspondence was
Additionally, the Plaintiff complains that
17.5 Ms Embury repeatedly
Both in correspondence3 and
Much of Mr Chapman’s
(a) the attorney whom it considers to
(a) The Plaintiff had foreshadow
Mr Chapman submitted that in
Given the Plaintiff’s failure
In Al Sadik v
The words “unreason
The Law - Indemnity Costs
both Wates Construction Ltd. v.
While summary judgment is a
(7) Where the unsuccessful allegations are
The Correspondence
I
Mr Chapman did make a
There are no other matters
The manner in which Mr
ORDER (1) The Plaintiff’s
ENDNOTE: Following the circulation of my