The parties could not agree on Costs following an Order by Justice Schutz denying the Application of the Minister of Justice and Solicitor General (“Minister”) to compel one of the Respondents, Mrs. Willis, to answer questions, despite declaring the questions to be relevant and material. The questions posed were declared relevant and material and Mrs. Willis’ refusal entitled the Minister to apply for forfeiture. Mrs. Willis argued that the primary purpose of the Application was to compel answers to the questions, which was not granted, and therefore the Minister was not successful. The Minister sought Costs on the basis that it was substantially successful. Mrs. Willis did not seek Costs.

Citing Rule 10.29(1), the Court noted that generally a successful party is entitled to Costs, including a substantially successful party even if that party was not totally successful on every issue or argument. Justice Schutz held that the Minister was unsuccessful in compelling Mrs. Willis to answer relevant and material questions. The declaration of relevance and materiality by the Court was not properly characterized as substantial success, particularly because Mrs. Willis conceded that the questions were relevant and material. Nor was the Minister’s entitlement to recourse by way of forfeiture a substantial success. The Minister’s request for Costs was denied.