The Appellants appeal of a Costs Award following a Trial was dismissed. The Appellant and Respondent had been involved in litigation over child support since 2015. In March 2021, a Trial was ordered to address the Appellant’s child support obligations from June 2017 onward. Despite an informal settlement offer from the Respondent in May 2021, which the Appellant did not accept, the Trial proceeded. At Trial, the Respondent presented expert testimony, while the Appellant represented himself. The Trial Judge ruled that the Appellant owed $288,510.08 in child support, exceeding the Respondent’s offer. Consequently, the Respondent sought full indemnity Costs or, alternatively, double Schedule C Costs.

The Trial Judge awarded the Respondent Costs assessed pursuant to a Bill of Costs under Column 3 and 70% of the Respondent’s expert fees, noting that Costs are payable by the unsuccessful party to the successful party on a party-party basis and considering the factors listed in Rules 10.31 and 10.33. The Trial Judge also noted that double Costs presumption in Rule 4.29 did not apply when a litigant achieves success exceeding an informal offer.

The Appellant argued that the Trial Judge erred by ignoring terms in the parties’ Matrimonial Settlement Agreement, disregarding alleged misconduct by the Respondent, and failing to consider various aspects of the lengthy litigation.

In dismissing the Appellant’s argument, the Court noted that Costs Decisions should not be disturbed unless they reflect an error in principle or the Costs Award is plainly wrong. As the Trial Judge reviewed and addressed arguments by both parties and applied reductions to the Costs claimed by the Respondent where appropriate, the Appellant failed to establish any error in principle or that the Costs Award was plainly wrong.

The Court dismissed the Appeal on Costs as a result.