Following a motion concerning whether to set aside a default judgment or reduce an interest rate, the court had awarded costs to the plaintiff.
After judgment, the defendants argued that a prior Rule 49 offer to settle matched the result and therefore disentitled the plaintiff to costs while entitling the defendants to their costs of the motion.
The court held that the cost consequences regime under Rule 49.10 does not apply to motions to set aside default judgments in the same manner as trial judgments.
The defendants therefore could not rely on the offer to alter the costs determination.
The previously ordered costs award in favour of the plaintiff was confirmed.
