The Plaintiff appealed an award of damages following the Trial of a motor vehicle accident Claim. At the same time, the Defendant appealed the Costs award, arguing that the Chambers Judge failed to give effect to two informal offers that were made prior to Trial. Neither offer complied with Rule 4.24. The Court held that the decision of the Chambers Judge was reasonable; although Judges have the discretion to consider offers that are not compliant with Rule 4.24, they are not obligated to award Costs to the unsuccessful party even though their offer was greater than the final award.

The Plaintiff cross-appealed, arguing that the Chambers Judge should have awarded enhanced Costs because the Defendant refused to admit the Plaintiff’s Expert’s Reports. The Plaintiff relied on Rules 6.37 and 10.33(2)(b) to support their position. The Court held that Rule 10.33(2)(b) permits a judge to award Costs where a party fails to make an admission, but does not impose an obligation to do so. The Court dismissed all Appeals, and declined to grant the Costs of the Appeal to either party.