An offer of compromise under UCPR r 20.26 need not expressly state it is 'exclusive of costs'; the rule requires only that the offer in fact be exclusive of costs, and an offer that does not purport to be inclusive of costs will comply. A Calderbank offer addressed jointly to multiple defendants with opposing interests is not capable of acceptance by one defendant alone and cannot ground an indemnity costs order against that defendant. The fact that a party won at first instance does not make it reasonable to refuse a compromise offer on appeal.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 26 later cases that cite this judgment.
5 of the 26 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.