Christopher Guang-Tsiow Tan

This costs endorsement followed a successful appeal by the appellant, Dong Jin Qiu, regarding the quantum of damages.

The appeal resulted in the respondent, Biao Liu, owing the appellant $10,496.68.

The court determined that the appellant was the successful party at both trial and appeal, contrary to the respondent's argument for partial indemnity costs based on a forfeited deposit.

As the appellant did not request costs, no order for trial costs was made.

The moving party, who was the respondent on a previous appeal, brought a motion under Rules 37.14 and 59.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to vary the Court of Appeal's decision and dismiss the appeal.

The moving party argued the court erred by misreading the record regarding the interpretation of a partnership agreement.

The court found Rule 37.14 inapplicable as it pertains to specific procedural errors, and Rule 59.06 (accidental slip or omission) also inapplicable, as the submission was a re-argument of a point already considered and not supported by the trial judge's findings or the agreement's wording.

The motion was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding the measure of damages for breach of a joint venture partnership agreement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding of a binding partnership agreement and its breach but found an error in the quantification of damages.

The trial judge had incorrectly awarded the respondent the extra capital he invested as damages.

The Court of Appeal clarified that damages should be limited to the cost of borrowing the additional capital incurred due to the breach, up to the date of trial, less a retained deposit.

The appeal was allowed with costs to the appellant.

The plaintiffs, having succeeded on a summary judgment motion in a real estate transaction dispute, sought costs.

The court determined the application of Rule 49.10(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which dictates costs consequences for unaccepted offers to settle.

The defendants argued that a non-disparagement clause in the plaintiffs' offer to settle rendered it invalid for Rule 49.10 purposes.

The court found the non-disparagement provision to be clear and not unreasonable, distinguishing it from cases where an offer's terms were vague or uncertain.

As the judgment obtained by the plaintiffs was more favourable than their offer, they were awarded partial indemnity costs to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court fixed costs at $33,039.76, considering the factors under Rule 57.01(1) and the principle of fairness and reasonableness.

The Plaintiff moved to strike paragraph 19 of the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim, arguing it disclosed statements protected by settlement privilege or, alternatively, pleaded evidence contrary to Rule 25.06(1).

The court declined to rule on settlement privilege, deeming it premature, but granted the motion to strike paragraph 19 on the basis that it pleaded evidence.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to the Plaintiff.

The applicants sought to enforce letters of request issued by a Pennsylvania court against the respondents (Royal Bank of Canada, Peter Gordon, and Minden Gross LLP) to obtain documents and information for a civil action in Pennsylvania.

The court granted the application, finding that the evidence sought was relevant, necessary for trial (including pre-trial proceedings), not otherwise obtainable, identified with reasonable specificity, not contrary to public policy, and not unduly burdensome.

The court emphasized deference to the requesting court's findings and rejected arguments regarding pre-trial use and solicitor-client privilege.