This was an Appeal by Baker Law Firm, challenging the non-production of a settlement agreement and solicitor’s file, as well as disputing the Costs awarded against them. The firm argued against the decisions of the Application Judge that denied the production of the documents and awarded significant Costs to the opposing parties, citing alleged misapplication of legal standards concerning settlement privilege and Costs assessment.

The Court noted that, pursuant to Rule 10.29(1), the Respondents were presumptively entitled to costs after succeeding in the Appeal. The Court also noted that a Calderbank offer warrants Costs considerations, but it does not automatically provide for double Costs like Formal Offers, pursuant to Rule 4.29. Justice Labrenz exercised the Court's discretion as provided under Rule 10.31(1) to set the Costs Award, which could be determined as any multiple or fraction of Schedule C, as a lump sum, or as a percentage of assessed Costs. Additionally, the Court considered various factors outlined in Rule 10.33 and Rule 10.2, which include the result of the Action, the amount claimed and recovered, the conduct of the parties, and the complexity of the issues involved, to determine the appropriate quantum of Costs.

Ultimately, the Court found Baker Law Firm’s allegations of fraud and misconduct in litigation to be unfounded, justifying significant Costs consequences against them. Consequently, Costs were ordered to be assessed by an Assessment Officer specifically for the Appeal proceedings alone, directing an award of either assessed solicitor-client Costs or the Schedule C, Column 3 amount with a five-times multiplier, whichever was lower.