The Court held that where a plaintiff succeeds on the claim taken to trial (here, a public road declaration), that constitutes 'the event' for costs purposes under UCPR 42.1 notwithstanding that other claims were dismissed following settlement. The Court exercised its discretion under UCPR 42.20 to depart from the starting point that a plaintiff pay costs of dismissed claims, finding that where dismissal resulted from a negotiated settlement involving mutual concessions (including the defendant granting easements), the Lai Qin principle of no order as to costs remained appropriate. Prior interlocutory costs orders for amendments were held to cure any prejudice from the plaintiff's history of amendment, precluding reliance on that history to displace the usual costs order.
The full text is available to signed-in members.