12 Dec 2025
Respondents proved exceptional circumstances and applicants acted unreasonably in rejecting reasonable pre-action offers and later accepting identical sanctioned payments without justification; therefore applicants are entitled to costs only up to the respective lapse dates of the pre-action offers and must pay respondents' costs thereafter.
12 Dec 2025
Respondents demonstrated exceptional circumstances and injustice in these fact-specific cases: applicants unreasonably rejected pre-action offers that were no worse than subsequently accepted sanctioned payments, there was no material change in medical condition between the pre-action offers and acceptance of sanctioned payments, and applicants failed to justify rejecting the offers; accordingly the court departed from the default Order 22 r20(1) costs order and ordered applicants to pay respondents' costs from the respective lapse dates.
20 Jul 2011
The court will not exercise its discretion under Order 22 rule 20(1) to deprive the plaintiff of costs merely because the sanctioned payment accepted matched an earlier pre-action offer. Pre-action offers are relevant but identicality alone does not generate exceptional or compelling circumstances to order costs otherwise; consequently the defendants' summons was dismissed and the plaintiff is entitled to costs as provided by Order 22 rule 20(1).
9 Dec 1997
The pre-action offer was spent when rejected and proceedings were issued; the trial judge erred in principle in ordering plaintiffs who established liability and recovered substantial (more than nominal) damages to pay the defendant's costs; appeal court sets aside the costs order and substitutes no order as to the costs of the proceedings below.