This decision addresses costs arising from a Rule 21 motion to strike a statement of claim based on a limitations defence, and an associated refusals motion.
The plaintiff, Kola Iluyomade, was technically successful on the Rule 21 motion, which was dismissed without prejudice to the defendants reasserting the limitations defence later.
Both parties sought costs; the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs, while the defendants sought partial indemnity costs for wasted efforts and the refusals motion.
The court found good reason to depart from the normal rule that the successful party is entitled to costs, citing the plaintiff's "pyrrhic victory" on the Rule 21 motion, divided success on the refusals motion, and the non-productive nature of the procedural skirmishes.
The court also deemed the plaintiff's Rule 49 offer to settle "hollow." Ultimately, the court ordered no costs, leaving each party to bear their own.
