The Court held that the making of a later, more favourable offer of compromise does not operate to withdraw or nullify an earlier offer for the purposes of UCPR r 42.15A, and the defendant's entitlement to indemnity costs ran from the date of the first (walk-away) offer. The Court rejected the plaintiff's argument that inconsistent subsequent offers must be treated as withdrawing earlier offers, noting this would cut across r 20.27(2) which permits acceptance of earlier offers even when later offers are extant. In the alternative, the Court found the first offer also satisfied the Calderbank unreasonableness test given the plaintiff's low prospects of success as assessed at the time of the offer.
The full text is available to signed-in members.