The Court ordered indemnity costs from the date of a rejected Calderbank offer where the plaintiff's case had fundamental weaknesses apparent at the time of the offer, all evidence had been served, and the final outcome was substantially worse than the offer's terms. The Court held that a Calderbank offer requiring mutual dismissal with no order as to costs constituted a genuine compromise notwithstanding an asymmetric reservation of the defendants' rights to pursue statutory warranty and third-party claims, because the primary judgment would not have precluded such claims in any event. The Court declined to reduce a co-defendant's recoverable costs by 50% despite aligned interests with other defendants, finding that separate representation was reasonable where adverse findings could have had distinct economic consequences for different shareholders.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.