The appellants appealed a costs order of $691,304.74 on a substantial indemnity basis, awarded after the respondents successfully moved to set aside an ex parte Mareva injunction and Anton Piller order.
The Divisional Court upheld the substantial indemnity scale, finding the appellants' failure to make full and frank disclosure was not inadvertent.
However, the court found the motion judge erred in failing to properly analyze the bills of costs and apply the Boucher principles to ensure the quantum was fair and reasonable.
The court reduced the costs awarded to the Yemec respondents by 40% and to the Bungaro respondents by 20%.
The court also held that post-judgment interest on the costs award should run from the date of the costs order, not the date of the decision on the merits.
