Following a motion concerning the defendants’ failure to comply with disclosure and non‑dissipation orders, the plaintiffs sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.
Although the plaintiffs did not obtain dismissal of the defence, they succeeded in obtaining strict disclosure terms and relief advancing the litigation.
The court found that the defendants deliberately failed to comply with prior disclosure orders and advanced false allegations that the plaintiffs had stolen business records.
The defendants’ claims of impecuniosity were rejected as unsupported by the evidence.
Substantial indemnity costs were warranted as a sanction for the defendants’ conduct and to denounce false allegations and non‑compliance with court orders.
