2 total
Successful defendants awarded full indemnity costs based on clear contractual provisions in a promissory note.
Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claim to rectify a promissory note and the dissolution of an interim injunction, the successful defendants sought costs.
The defendants relied on contractual indemnity provisions in the promissory note and guarantee to claim full indemnity costs.
The court held that the plain language of the contracts entitled the main defendants to full indemnity costs.
The costs claimed were found to be reasonable under Rule 57.01, with a minor deduction for a defendant lawyer's time spent attending trial as a spectator.
A separate defendant was awarded partial indemnity costs.
Action to rectify promissory note dismissed; written due date enforced and interim injunction dissolved.
The plaintiffs sought to rectify a promissory note, arguing that the fixed due date of December 31, 2015, did not reflect the true intent of the parties and was a mistake.
Alternatively, they argued there was a subsequent agreement to defer payment until a new financing deal was completed.
The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, finding that the written terms of the note accurately reflected the parties' agreement and that no subsequent agreement to defer enforcement had been reached.
The interim injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing the note was dissolved.
