The Court considered whether to award an enhanced Costs award following Judgment against multiple Defendants. In the Trial of the Action, multiple Defendants were found to have: given evidence that was not credible; sworn false Affidavit evidence; failed to answer Undertakings and/or gave misleading evidence during the Trial.

The Court noted that Costs are discretionary and guided by Rules 10.29, 10.31, and 10.33. The Court then stated that there were a number of factors present in this case that justified awarding enhanced Costs. Those factors included the fact that the case was lengthy and complex; there were adverse findings against the Defendants on credibility; there was late disclosure of documentation; there were failures to attend Questioning; and the Defendants refused a proposed Agreed Statement of Facts that was largely proven at Trial.

The Court then awarded double Costs against the Defendants held liable at Trial. The Court also found that double Costs were also appropriate because both the Formal Offer and Calderbank Offer made by the Plaintiffs were bested at Trial. Rule 4.29 provides that where a Formal Offer is made and bested at Trial, the offering party is entitled to double Costs.