Significant Costs were awarded against the Plaintiff after its claim was dismissed as limitation barred. The Plaintiff filed two Appeals, one regarding the substantive issues between the parties, and the second regarding the Costs Award. Eventually, the Plaintiff discontinued the substantive Appeal but pursued the Costs Appeal.

Rule 14.5(1)(e) makes it clear that a Costs Decision cannot be appealed to the Court of Appeal without permission. Costs Decisions are highly discretionary and permission to Appeal is granted sparingly. The purpose of the Rule is to “bring finality to costs orders and to conserve this Court’s time by screening out hopeless appeals on the issue of costs.” Therefore, parties face a high threshold in seeking permission to Appeal Costs decisions, and they are not set aside unless they are plainly wrong or the Judge below made an error in principle.

The test for permission to Appeal a Costs Award requires: (a) a good arguable case having sufficient merit to warrant scrutiny by a panel of the Court; (b) issues of importance to the parties and in general; (c) that the Costs Appeal has practical utility; and (d) that no delay in the proceeding will be caused by the Costs Appeal.

The Court found that Plaintiff failed to establish that, on its facts, the Costs Decision raised an issue of general or public importance. Questions of general or public importance involve matters of “policy, principle or law that might have precedential value”. None were present on the facts. Accordingly, the Appeal was dismissed.