Following earlier reasons granting relief in a complex commercial dispute, the successful applicants sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $428,000.
The respondents argued that prior settlement offers justified limiting costs to partial indemnity and challenged the hourly rates used in calculating substantial indemnity costs.
The court held that the settlement offers did not meet the requirements of Rule 49 and were not genuine offers capable of affecting costs.
Given findings of deceitful and fraudulent conduct by the respondents and failure to comply with court‑ordered accounting, substantial indemnity costs were warranted.
Applying proportionality principles and reviewing the bill of costs, the court found the hours and rates reasonable and awarded the full amount claimed.
