Eamon J. gave a further Costs ruling arising out of a prior Appeal of a Master’s decision where His Lordship had granted partial Summary Judgment against the Respondent.

His Lordship first considered Rule 10.29, which sets out the principle that the successful party to an Application is entitled to Costs against the unsuccessful party, and that the Costs are payable forthwith notwithstanding final determination of the Application, proceeding, or Action. The Court, however, maintains discretion over the Costs award pursuant to Rule 10.31 after making the necessary considerations pursuant to Rule 10.33.

Under Rule 10.33, the Court may consider any matter related to the question of reasonable and proper Costs that the Court considers appropriate. In deciding whether to impose, deny, or vary a Costs award, the Court may consider relevant circumstances including (i) the conduct of a party that was unnecessary or delayed the Action (ii) the party’s denial to admit something that should have been admitted; and (iii) whether any step in the Action was unnecessary or improper.

His Lordship held that the Appellant was substantially successful on Appeal, despite the fact that the Appellant had failed to produce adequate evidence before the Master, the Appellant was entitled to introduce new evidence on Appeal. However, the effect of doing so delayed the litigation. His Lordship also considered the Respondent’s conduct, and held that the Respondent’s defences were largely supposition of possible testimonies, bare denials, and unsupported self-serving evidence that fly in the face of an uncontradicted documentary record. Consequently, the Defendant bears the larger responsibly for defeating the objections under Rule 1.2 and Part 1 of the Rules.

Eamon J. assessed the Appeal Costs at 2/3 of the amounts set out in Schedule C, along with disbursements, and reminded the parties of the timelines for preparation of Orders set out in Rule 9.2.