After Master Robertson dismissed the Plaintiff’s Application to amend its Amended Statement of Claim, the parties were unable to agree on Costs. As such, they re-appeared before the Master for a Costs determination.

The Defendant, who was the successful party, sought Costs “payable forthwith and in any event of the cause”. Master Robertson noted that this meant the Defendant had simply sought standard Costs, as Costs are always payable forthwith unless the Court states otherwise. The Plaintiff argued that Costs should be set at $2,000 plus reasonable disbursements “payable at the end of the case”, but its arguments were rejected by the Master.

Master Robertson explained that pursuant to Rule 10.29, the successful party to an Application is generally entitled to Costs against the unsuccessful party, subject to the Court’s discretion, an Assessment Officer’s discretion under Rule 10.41 (which entitles the Assessment Officer to assess whether Costs are “reasonable and proper”), and certain rules which speak to Costs in particular circumstances. Since there had been no Calderbank Offer or other circumstances suggesting that elevated Costs were appropriate, the Defendant was entitled to its Costs, which are always payable forthwith pursuant to Rule 10.29(1).