The Court ordered the executor to pay the successful plaintiff's costs in a family provision case, but discharged that obligation by vacating a $125,000 charge over the property awarded to the plaintiff, rather than requiring a monetary payment. Neither party's Calderbank letter or Offer of Compromise attracted costs consequences because the result fell between the parties' respective offers — neither demonstrated willingness to settle on terms less favourable than the outcome achieved. The Court emphasised that parties to family provision disputes over modest estates should not assume they will be spared costs orders, and that the executor's right to an indemnity from the estate does not justify acrimonious and disproportionately costly litigation.
The full text is available to signed-in members.