Ronald F.B. Woynarski

Following a motion for interim child and spousal support, the parties were unable to settle the issue of costs and provided written submissions.

The applicant sought partial indemnity costs of $12,096.93, while the respondent sought costs of $11,053.21.

The court found the applicant to be the successful party as she had to bring the motion to obtain support, which the respondent had not paid voluntarily.

However, the court reduced the applicant's fee claim by 30 percent because the respondent prevailed on several issues, including the income determination basis and retroactivity.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of $8,494.96.

Following a nine‑day trial concerning whether a contract existed between the parties, the plaintiff’s claims were entirely dismissed and the defendants’ counterclaim was also dismissed with no evidence led.

The court was required to determine the appropriate costs award.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $355,000, arguing that the plaintiff’s conduct increased the complexity of the proceedings and relying on several settlement offers.

The court found the Rule 49 consequences were not triggered but considered the final offer in assessing reasonable costs.

Certain expert report disbursements were disallowed, and the court ultimately fixed the defendants’ costs at $255,000 and the plaintiff’s costs at $25,000.

The plaintiff logistics company sued the defendants for breach of an alleged exclusive four‑year transportation and logistics services contract, seeking damages for lost business after the defendants used other carriers.

The court found that the purported agreement lacked essential elements of a binding contract, including certainty as to the parties, period, and price, and contained no ascertainable pricing formula.

The court also held that the employee who signed the document on behalf of the defendants lacked actual, apparent, or ostensible authority to bind them.

The agreement was further unenforceable for lack of consideration and uncertainty, and ambiguities were construed against the plaintiff under the contra proferentem rule.

The plaintiff’s claim was dismissed, and the defendants’ counterclaim was also dismissed for lack of supporting evidence.