The Court held that where a plaintiff's claims against multiple defendants raise distinct factual and legal issues, costs orders should be made severally against each defendant in proportion to the costs attributable to the claims against that defendant, rather than jointly and severally against all defendants. Offers of compromise addressed to defendants jointly under UCPR r 20.26 do not engage r 42.14 where the offer was only capable of joint acceptance and did not involve a genuine element of compromise for each defendant individually — particularly where the settlement sum far exceeded the claims against particular defendants. On gross sum costs assessment, the Court applied a 30% reduction to solicitors' fees (rather than the plaintiff's expert's proposed 20%) to account for unexplained 'top-heavy' staffing where over 58% of work was performed by senior associates with minimal delegation to junior fee earners.
The full text is available to signed-in members.