The successful appellants sought costs following summary judgment motions in land transfer tax appeals.
They requested over $260,000 and argued that costs should also include work performed for additional related appeals and disputes that had been held in abeyance, as well as elevated costs based on a purported Rule 49 settlement offer.
The court declined to award costs for the additional appeals and related disputes because they were not before the court and there was no evidentiary basis to assess the work performed.
The court also held that the settlement proposal was not a valid Rule 49 offer because it addressed matters beyond the proceedings before the court and therefore did not justify elevated costs.
The parties were directed to attempt to agree on the remaining costs or provide further submissions limited to the four appeals heard.
