Adlem v Arlow

The appellants filed two applications for condonation in the Supreme Court of Appeal. The first was required because their notice of appeal was delivered one day late, caused by difficulties in serving the notice on the respondent’s correspondents. The second arose because the appellants’ attorneys miscalculated the deadline for filing heads of argument, resulting in a delay of seven days. Both applications for condonation were opposed by the respondent. Condonation was granted in both instances, and the appeal itself ultimately succeeded. The only issue left for determination was the appropriate costs orders in relation to the opposed condonation applications.

In each application for condonation, the appellants were ordered to pay the costs on an unopposed basis, and the respondent was ordered to pay the appellants’ costs occasioned by his opposition.

The case is significant for its clarification of costs principles in condonation applications, particularly that an unreasonable opposition to condonation can attract an adverse costs order even where the applicant was at fault for the procedural non-compliance.