The appellant challenged both the trial judgment and the costs award arising from a dispute concerning consideration for shares and obligations under minutes of settlement.
The Court of Appeal rejected the attack on the trial judge’s factual findings, holding there was evidence to support the impugned findings.
However, it held the trial judge erred in principle in awarding solicitor-client costs because the pleadings, while strongly worded, did not amount to fraud or dishonest conduct warranting elevated costs and were not pursued unreasonably.
Leave to appeal costs was granted, the appeal on costs was allowed, and party-party costs were substituted, with the respondent recovering 90 percent of the costs of the appeal.
