KUZOFF v TALISMAN PERU BV SUCURSAL DEL PERU, 2020 ABQB 424
4.29: Costs consequences of formal offer to settle
10.29: General rule for payment of litigation costs
Following the Plaintiff, Kuzoff’s, unsuccessful Appeal of Master Prowse’s decision to summarily dismiss the Action against the Defendant, Talisman Peru BV Sucursal Del Peru (“Talisman”), Madam Justice Hollins addressed the issue of Costs. Having determined Talisman to be the successful party, Her Ladyship found it was entitled to Schedule C, Column 3 Costs pursuant to Rule 10.29.
Additionally, Madam Justice Hollins assessed whether either of Talisman’s formal or informal offers to settle would enable it to claim double Costs. Following the Summary Dismissal of Kuzoff’s claim, Talisman made a Formal Offer to settle, in which Talisman would agree to forfeit Costs granted by Master Prowse, in exchange for Kuzoff consenting to a dismissal of the Appeal. Her Ladyship found that this was a Formal Offer to settle falling under the purview of Rule 4.29, and that no special circumstances, as noted in 4.29(e), barred Talisman from doubling its Costs. Having arrived at that conclusion, it was therefore unnecessary to consider the informal “Calderbank Offer” and its potential impact on Costs.
Lastly, Her Ladyship granted Talisman a 45.6% inflation on Costs based on the draft Amendment Regulation that increased Schedule C Costs, which the Court noted to be “…woefully unrepresentative of average out-of-pocket costs of litigation.”View CanLII Details