The Court declined to make declarations collapsing a testamentary trust under the rule in Saunders v Vautier at the consequential orders stage, holding that such relief raised new issues not addressed in the principal judgment and required a separate application with supporting materials. An offer of compromise made only to the first defendant before the second defendant was joined could not ground indemnity costs against either defendant: the second defendant never received the offer, and the claim against the first defendant was determined only in the alternative, meaning no order or judgment was obtained 'on the claim' to which the offer related for the purposes of UCPR r 42.14. No costs discount was warranted where the defendants accepted at trial that they were not prejudiced by the plaintiffs' narrowing of their case.
The full text is available to signed-in members.