The Applicant was previously unsuccessful in seeking partial Summary Judgment. The Applicant then contended that the successful Respondent should have Tariff Costs under the column representing the amount of the partial claim, rather than the amount of the total claim. The Applicant also submitted that the Questioning had taken place long prior to the Summary Judgment Application, and should not be a compensable item in Costs.

The Court held that, on a plain reading of Schedule C, Rule 1(3)(c), in an Interlocutory Application the applicable Costs column is that of the total amount claimed by the Plaintiff. The Court also held that a protective measure was built within Item 5(1) Questioning, as it can only be claimed once per Action. The Court held that the Questioning was a compensable item in Costs in relation to the Summary Judgment Application.