The Judicial Registrar held that where a plaintiff commenced proceedings opposing an adverse possession claim but subsequently consented to a declaration entirely in the defendants' favour, the plaintiff had effectively surrendered or capitulated, and was ordered to pay the defendants' costs on the standard basis. The Court applied the ONE.TEL distinction between cases of surrender and cases resolved by supervening events, finding no supervening event and that the consent orders reflected complete success for the defendants on their counterclaim and complete failure for the plaintiff on her claim.
The full text is available to signed-in members.