The Applicants sought quantification of their Costs entitlement after being successful in an earlier Application. After the Application, the Parties agreed to an arbitration. The Respondents asserted that the Costs from the earlier Application were folded into the issues to be determined at arbitration. Alternatively, the Respondents asserted undue delay by the Applicants in bringing the Application to seek quantification of the earlier Costs Award.

Justice Lema denied that the Costs had been folded into the arbitration and noted that the Respondents failed to identify any authority for the crystallization of a Costs Award. Justice Lema considered Rule 10.29 and identified that, typically, Costs must be paid forthwith. However, given that the quantum of the Costs Award was not finalized after the Application, Costs were not payable forthwith. Under Rule 10.30, Justice Lema noted the Rule enumerates that a Costs Award is to be made after a Judgment or final Order has been entered with respect to all other matters in the Action. Therefore, after the Costs Award is made, steps to quantify it are permitted. Justice Lema noted that none of the party-and-party Costs Rules, specifically Rules 10.28 through 10.45, imposed a deadline for quantifying a Costs Award.

Finally, Justice Lema stated that the absence of a strict time limit for awarding Costs can be dealt with pursuant to Rule 10.30. Notably, under Rule 10.30, either Party may request an Assessment of Costs pursuant to Rule 10.37. Further, Justice Lema noted that the Respondents could have requested a Bill of Costs pursuant to Rule 10.35.

Ultimately, after considering the relevant Rules related to Costs Awards, Justice Lema granted Costs to the Applicants.