In what circumstances have costs been denied or substantially reduced because of the unsuccessful party's financial circumstances?

In Matton v. Yarlasky, the court distinguished a number of cases where it appears costs were denied or substantially reduced because of the unsuccessful party’s financial circumstances, on the basis that in Matton v. Yarlasky there were no tragic circumstances and the issue before the court was not a politicized and widespread issue.

Unlike Matton v. Yarlasky, in this case there is a factor, in addition to the plaintiff’s financial circumstances, that I believe should be considered in determining the scale and quantum of costs to be awarded against her: as detailed in my endorsement of July 4, 2008, the plaintiff is now battling an illness. As a result, she has experienced periods of unemployment that have affected her financial position. This factor should not in my view insulate her from a costs award; as Accenture has submitted, the nature of the allegations the plaintiff advanced are serious and there must be costs consequences. I have also considered, in my balancing of the various factors, that there was no indication that the allegations, although serious, received any public attention. (I have assumed that if this were so, counsel for Accenture would have drawn such fact to my attention in their cost submissions.)