This was a Costs decision arising from an unsuccessful Appeal. The Court considered Rules 14.88(1) and 14.88(3). Specifically, that the successful party is typically entitled to its Costs, and that those Costs, unless otherwise ordered, shall be applied using the same scale that applies to the Order or Judgment appealed.

The Chambers Judge awarded Costs based on Column 4 of Schedule C of the Rules, with a 1.5 multiplier. The Respondents to the Appeal requested a Second Counsel Fee under item 20(b) of Schedule C and sought double Costs in accordance with Rules 4.29 and 14.59, because they had made a Formal Offer to Settle.

The Appellants agreed that the Respondents were entitled to Costs but disagreed that a Second Counsel Fee was appropriate. From the Appellants perspective, the issues on Appeal were not complex. Further, the Appellants disagreed that double costs were appropriate because the Formal Offer was a “nothing offer”. The Appellants also disagreed with the 1.5 multiplier, arguing that the issues on Appeal were more straightforward than those before the Court of King’s Bench.

The Court disagreed with the Appellants, finding that the procedural history of the Case was complex and as such, the Court had asked second counsel to provide a summary of the facts. Therefore, in the circumstances, costs for a second counsel were reasonable.

Further, the Court determined that the Respondent’s Formal Offer to Settle contained an “identifiable and sufficient compromise”, and thus there was no principled basis to refuse double costs. The Respondents were awarded their requested relief.