Haigh v. Kent

Haigh v. Kent

The May 5, 2010 settlement offer was within the range of reasonable outcomes that ought to have been accepted; accordingly the plaintiff (Haigh) is entitled to double costs for all steps after that date (except costs applications); special costs are not warranted; costs in both actions awarded at Scale B with specific apportionments as set out.

Citation
2013 BCSC 298
Parties
Plaintiff (haigh Action); Defendant (kent Action): Randolph Lawrence Haigh; Defendant (kent Action): Darlene Haigh; Defendant (haigh Action); Plaintiff (kent Action): Leonard Clive Kent; Defendant (haigh Action); Plaintiff (kent Action): Dee Alexander Kent
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial — Property Dispute; Trusts and Unjust Enrichment; Related Eviction/tenancy Proceedings / Costs Submissions and Judgment (reasons for Judgment as to Costs)
Outcome
Applicant awarded double costs for steps after May 5, 2010 in Haigh Action; special costs denied; Scale B costs awarded in Haigh and Kent Actions; parties bear their own costs for the costs applications.
Legal Topics
Constructive Trust, Unjust Enrichment, Offer to Settle, Double Costs, Special Costs, Settlement Conference Confidentiality, Eviction, Appraisal Evidence
Source Language
English
Property Law Trusts and Equitable Remedies Civil Procedure Costs Landlord and Tenant Law Valuation/appraisal Constructive Trust Unjust Enrichment +6 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Randolph Lawrence Haigh

Plaintiff (haigh Action); Defendant (kent Action)

Darlene Haigh

Defendant (kent Action)

Leonard Clive Kent

Defendant (haigh Action); Plaintiff (kent Action)

Dee Alexander Kent

Defendant (haigh Action); Plaintiff (kent Action)

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial — Property Dispute; Trusts and Unjust Enrichment; Related Eviction/tenancy Proceedings / Costs Submissions and Judgment (reasons for Judgment as to Costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the May 5, 2010 settlement offer ought reasonably to have been accepted
  2. 2 Whether double costs under Rule 9-1(5) should be awarded
  3. 3 Whether special costs are warranted by the defendants' conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The May 5, 2010 settlement offer was within the range of reasonable outcomes that ought to have been accepted; accordingly the plaintiff (Haigh) is entitled to double costs for all steps after that date (except costs applications); special costs are not warranted; costs in both actions awarded at Scale B with specific apportionments as set out.

Court Disposition

Applicant awarded double costs for steps after May 5, 2010 in Haigh Action; special costs denied; Scale B costs awarded in Haigh and Kent Actions; parties bear their own costs for the costs applications.

Orders

  • Costs awarded to Randolph Haigh in Haigh Action at Scale B for all steps taken up to May 5, 2010
  • Double costs awarded to Randolph and Darlene Haigh for all steps taken after May 5, 2010 in Haigh Action, except costs relating to the present costs applications