Unregistered |
12-03-2023 12:30 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
(Post 242163)
TTSH hired better lawyers?
|
6 Counsel for the defendants submitted that I ought to take the conduct of the plaintiff into account. It is true that a major amendment was made to the claim a week before the trial commenced. Affidavits of crucial witnesses were filed without leave. The trial had to be vacated and re-scheduled. The action itself was badly conceived. However, all that cannot be blamed on the plaintiff who is only the administrator of the deceased’ estate as the action could only proceed on medical and legal advice.
7 How the action progressed and ended as it did have been set out in my judgment of 13 October 2022. What advice the plaintiff received, however, is not a matter of inquiry before me. Costs are not meant to punish a failed civil action, but when a reasonable offer to settle was refused and the party refusing ended worse off than the terms offered, the other party should not have to bear the resulting costs that might have been saved. In this case, even an offer of mediation was rebuffed. In such circumstances, the law allows the court, unless for strong reasons otherwise, to order indemnity costs. I am of the view that the defendants here ought to be compensated by indemnity costs, and I so order.
'nuff said
|