The Court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs of a dismissed soybean claim under UCPR r 42.20(1), holding that the plaintiff's receipt of confirmatory evidence about an alternative claim was not a 'supervening event' warranting departure from the default rule, but rather a consequence of the plaintiff's own strategic litigation decisions. The Court made no order as to costs of the defendants' motion itself, finding that in circumstances where the defendants had not sought costs payable on a forthwith basis, there was no clear utility in determining the interlocutory costs question prior to final hearing.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.