Tengteng Gai

Following successful motions to strike the plaintiffs' $5 million claim as statute-barred, the defendants sought their costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued the requested amounts were disproportionate and suggested a combined award of $10,000.

The court reviewed the complexity of the historical claims, the extensive document retrieval required, and the plaintiffs' conduct which prolonged the proceedings.

Applying the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, the court awarded costs of $85,000 to each defendant.

The plaintiffs commenced an action in 2020 alleging breach of an airport lease and negligent misrepresentation regarding a lease extension promised between 1985 and 1995.

The defendants moved to strike the claims under Rule 21.01(1) as statute-barred.

The plaintiffs argued the Real Property Limitations Act applied or that the breaches were ongoing.

The court rejected these arguments, finding the claims were subject to the Limitations Act, 2002 and the former Limitations Act.

The court held it was plain and obvious that the plaintiffs discovered their claims between 1999 and 2013, well beyond the applicable limitation periods.

The action was dismissed without leave to amend.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking a timetable for discovery and mediation, and costs for an earlier, abandoned motion to strike the defendant's statement of defence due to delay in document production.

The parties consented to a timetable, rendering the motion to strike moot, but the plaintiff pursued costs.

The court found exceptional circumstances warranted an award of costs to the plaintiff, citing the defendant's significant and unexplained delay of over 25 months in providing initial document disclosure.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the plaintiff, emphasizing the importance of timely disclosure for civil justice.