The Respondent successfully applied before an Applications Judge for an Order enforcing an Undertaking of the Appellant to pay Costs to the Respondent. The Appellant appealed that Decision, arguing that the Applications Judge did not have the power to grant the Order because he was functus officio.

Justice Malik considered whether Rule 10.30(1)(c) or Rule 9.14 created an exception to the functus officio doctrine when the issue concerned Costs. In reviewing the jurisprudence, Justice Malik confirmed that both Rule 10.30 and Rule 9.14 are exceptions to the doctrine of functus officio. Both allow for the granting of further Costs Awards after final Judgment or Order has been pronounced and constitute a Rules-based exception to the application of the functus officio doctrine.

Further, and in any event, Malik J. held that the doctrine of functus officio did not apply in enforcing an Undertaking, as it did not require the Applications Judge to revisit the Costs Award. The Appeal was therefore dismissed.