James Lane

Following a successful motion for summary judgment in a defamation action where the plaintiff was awarded general and punitive damages, the parties could not agree on costs.

The plaintiff sought $50,000 on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the defendants' conduct was reprehensible.

The court found the defendants' conduct in the litigation did not rise to the egregious level required for elevated costs and noted the plaintiff's claimed time was excessive.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs on a partial indemnity basis in the all-inclusive amount of $23,000.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a defamation action against the defendants for publishing articles on a website and sending WhatsApp messages containing false allegations of financial impropriety and misappropriation of funds.

The court found the case appropriate for summary judgment and held that the articles were defamatory.

The defendants failed to establish any defences, including justification, responsible communication, qualified privilege, or fair comment, due to a complete lack of evidence supporting the allegations and a reckless failure to verify them.

The court awarded the plaintiff $75,000 in general damages and $25,000 in punitive damages, but declined to grant a permanent injunction.

The appellant sued the respondent accountant and his firms for negligent misrepresentation, alleging she lost approximately $825,000 invested in a company based on his advice.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding no accountant-client relationship existed when the initial investment was structured, and that the appellant did not rely on the accountant's representations when making further investments despite knowing the company was in financial difficulty.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the action but allowed the appeal on costs on consent, reducing the trial costs awarded to the respondents.