Hilborn v. Wright

Hilborn v. Wright

The court exercised its discretion and dismissed the respondent's application for costs from the dates of the January 21, 2013 and February 25, 2013 offers because the offers did not finally resolve all issues, were delivered on the eve or morning of trial denying reasonable time for reflection, and the respondent did not obtain judgments as favourable as the terms of the offers; claimant awarded costs of the application.

Citation
2015 BCSC 1175
Parties
Claimant: Holly Tiffany Hilborn; Respondent: Cory Michael Wright (also known as Cory Wright)
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Family Property Division (common Law) / Application for Reconsideration of Trial Costs Following Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed; claimant awarded costs of the application
Legal Topics
Offers to Settle, Timing of Settlement Offers, Reasonableness of Offers, Division of Property, Appraisal Valuation Disputes
Source Language
English
Family Law Civil Procedure Costs and Costs Awards Offers to Settle Timing of Settlement Offers Reasonableness of Offers Division of Property Appraisal Valuation Disputes

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Holly Tiffany Hilborn

Claimant

Cory Michael Wright (also known as Cory Wright)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Property Division (common Law) / Application for Reconsideration of Trial Costs Following Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent is entitled to costs under Rule 11-1 based on settlement offers
  2. 2 Whether the offers were ones that ought reasonably to have been accepted
  3. 3 Whether the respondent obtained a judgment as favourable as or more favourable than the settlement offers

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its discretion and dismissed the respondent's application for costs from the dates of the January 21, 2013 and February 25, 2013 offers because the offers did not finally resolve all issues, were delivered on the eve or morning of trial denying reasonable time for reflection, and the respondent did not obtain judgments as favourable as the terms of the offers; claimant awarded costs of the application.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; claimant awarded costs of the application

Orders

  • Respondent's application for costs from January 21, 2013 and February 25, 2013 is dismissed.
  • Claimant (Hilborn) is awarded her costs of this application.