The parties were unable to settle Costs following three Applications in Special Chambers by the Applicant and applied for guidance. In Special Chambers, the Applicant sought: (1) the removal of the Respondent as Co-personal Representative of the Estate (the Co-personal Representative Application), (2) the termination of the Enduring Power of Attorney for the Respondent’s alleged failure to provide proper accounts (the Accounting Application), (3) and a contempt determination against the Respondent for failing to comply with Court Orders (the Contempt Application).

The Applicant argued for full indemnity Costs exceeding $100,000 or, alternatively, Costs under Column 4 or 5 with a multiplier, along with double Costs after a Calderbank Offer. The Respondent sought Costs for the Co-personal Representative and Contempt Applications but agreed the Applicant should receive Costs for the Accounting Application under Schedule C, Column 1.

The Court referred to Rules 10.29, 10.31 and 10.33. Rule 10.29 confirms the general rule that a successful party is entitled to costs subject to the Court’s discretion. Courts will consider the factors outlined in Rule 10.33 when awarding costs. A successful party is entitled to reasonable and proper costs, or any other amount deemed appropriate by the Court under Rule 10.31.

After considering the factors and jurisprudence, the Court found mixed success in the Applications, leading to distinct costs determinations.

The Applicant was awarded Costs under Column 2 with a 1.5 multiplier, and double costs after the date of the settlement offer for the Accounting Application. No Costs were awarded for the Contempt Application. The Respondent was entitled to Costs under Column 1 for the Co-personal Representative Application. This resulted in a net costs payable to the Applicant in the amount of $14,387.50, with the Respondent responsible for the Costs due to his conduct in the Accounting Application. Each party bore their own Costs for this Application.