The Court held that a Calderbank offer requiring execution of a deed with confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses is not automatically ineffective; whether rejection is unreasonable depends on the totality of circumstances including the sophistication of the parties, the stage of litigation, and whether the offeree itself proposed similar terms. Where a plaintiff succeeds on its central liability claim but recovers only a small fraction of claimed damages (here approximately 1% of the amount claimed), the Court declined to treat the defendant as the successful party or the damages as nominal, but applied a significant discount (ordering the defendant to pay only 25% of the plaintiff's costs) to reflect the disproportionate outcome and the presence of multiple unsuccessful co-defendants. The Court also held that r 42.34 UCPR should not be applied on an issue-by-issue basis to deny costs on a successful claim that was part of proceedings properly commenced in the Supreme Court.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.