Key Points:

• Background:

  • On November 22, 2023, BFL sought an interim injunction against HUB to prevent them from soliciting its customers.
  • A Consent Injunction Order was granted as the parties were close to resolving the matter.

• Positions:

  • BFL:
    • Claimed substantial effort to obtain the injunction and sought costs due to incurred expenses.
    • Requested modified McAllister costs or 1.5 times Column 5 of Schedule C.
  • HUB:
    • Denied breaches of the Unanimous Shareholders Agreement (USA).
    • Suggested each party should bear its own costs or have costs determined at the matter’s conclusion.

• Legal Framework:

  • Rule 10.31: Costs awarded at matter's conclusion.
  • Rule 10.33: Factors considered include success degree, claimed vs. recovered amount, issue importance, and action complexity.
  • Key Precedents:
    • Costs generally awarded to the successful party.
    • Costs should not be oppressive and must be exercised judicially.

• Decision Analysis:

  • Entitlement to Costs:
    • Despite no confirmed breaches, BFL gained a valuable Consent Order.
    • The Order required compliance with the USA, defined key terms, and imposed confidentiality.
  • Quantum of Costs:
    • Factors considered include action complexity and importance.
    • BFL largely successful but not entirely (e.g., no property return or preservation order).
    • Costs awarded on Column 4 of Schedule C, without increase, due to partial success and resolution.

• Conclusion:

  • BFL awarded costs on Column 4 of Schedule C and taxable disbursements. Specific amount not mentioned.