Rule Details
KITCHENHAM v KOSTER
Rules Discussed
- Rule 10.29 General rule for payment of litigation costs
- Rule 10.31 Court-ordered costs award
- Rule 10.33 Court considerations in making costs award
Case Summary
The decision focused on the appropriate level of costs after Ms. Kitchenham succeeded in litigation involving two related Actions. While she sought full indemnity costs of about $28,500 (or alternatively Schedule C costs), Mr. Koster argued that costs should be limited to the later of the two Actions and exclude earlier steps, claiming those had effectively been resolved by a prior Consent Order and partial payment.
The Court emphasized that costs are discretionary and primarily intended to provide reasonable, partial indemnification to the successful party, with proportionality and reasonableness as guiding principles.
Applying these principles, the Court rejected Mr. Koster’s argument that earlier litigation steps should be excluded, finding that the prior Consent Order only barred costs related to contempt proceedings, not the broader Actions.
After correcting errors in Ms. Kitchenham’s draft Bill of Costs, the Court found that Schedule C costs would be slightly lower than her claimed legal fees. Using this benchmark, the Court exercised its discretion to award a lump sum of $25,000, holding that this amount was fair and reasonably reflected partial indemnification.