The Court held that a single composite offer of compromise relating to the entire proceedings could not be disaggregated into separate offers for each defendant, and must be compared in globo against the final outcome. The plaintiffs' final result — a larger monetary judgment and a substantially longer restraint period against the first defendant — was more favourable than the offer, so neither UCPR rr 42.15/42.15A nor Calderbank principles displaced the general costs rule. The Court declined to make a retrospective costs-capping order under r 42.4 where the defendants had themselves incurred significantly greater costs than the plaintiffs during the relevant period and had not made a reasonable settlement offer, notwithstanding earlier judicial criticism of the plaintiffs' conduct of the liability hearing.
The full text is available to signed-in members.