Key Issues & Rulings

1. Alleged Misrepresentation by Defendant’s Counsel

   • Plaintiff alleged Defendant’s counsel misrepresented trial time agreements.
   • Court found no misrepresentation; Defendant provided context that trial length agreement was superseded by later developments.
   • No costs imposed against Defendant for this issue.

2. Plaintiff’s Request for Solicitor-Client Costs for Setting Trial Date

   • Plaintiff was successful in setting a five-day trial but sought full indemnity costs ($44,296.14).
   • Court awarded only Schedule-C-level costs because:
     • The Plaintiff did not provide itemized costs.
     • No exceptional circumstances justified solicitor-client costs.
     • Plaintiff could have abandoned its other applications earlier to expedite proceedings.

3. Defendant’s Counter-Claim for Costs

   • Defendant sought costs for responding to an abandoned attachment order and for addressing allegations against Defendant’s counsel.
   • Court found the attachment order was baseless, but Defendant's response was unnecessary since it was doomed to fail.
   • No costs awarded for Defendant’s responses to the 2020 action or attachment order.
   • Defendant was entitled to costs for successfully applying to strike portions of Plaintiff’s affidavit regarding an attachment order.

4. Final Costs Decision

   • Both parties had divided success:
     • Plaintiff succeeded in setting the trial.
     • Defendant succeeded in sealing irrelevant affidavit portions.
   • Final ruling: The court found divided success, meaning each party bore its own costs—no net monetary award.

Conclusion

• The Court determined that neither party should receive costs due to balanced success on various issues.
• The decision was delayed, and the judge acknowledged responsibility for this.