Following a prior decision granting partial relief to the applicants with no order as to costs, the respondents sought to vary the costs order based on a Rule 49 offer to settle.
The respondents argued they were entitled to substantial indemnity costs or, alternatively, partial indemnity costs following the offer because the judgment was no more favourable than the offer.
The court rejected the claim for substantial indemnity costs and declined to vary the earlier order.
Considering the divided success and circumstances of the litigation, the court held that the original no-costs order remained appropriate.
