The Costs Decision arose from an Application initially set for an interim Injunction, which was being resolved through a Consent Order, leading to a request for a short adjournment. The Applicant argued that they had spent significant resources in seeking an Injunction and therefore should be entitled to Costs. The Respondent, on the other hand, claimed that they should be entitled to Costs as they successfully defended the Application and no breaches of the Unanimous Shareholder Agreement were proven. The Court referred to Rule 10.29, 10.31 and 10.33 noting the general principles regarding a successful party being entitled to Costs. Justice T.G. Rothwell found that the Applicant was largely successful in obtaining what they sought through the Consent Order, leading to the decision to award Costs to the Applicant. The Court emphasized the importance of encouraging resolution and considered the complexity of the matter and the resources expended by both parties before deciding on the Costs Award.