I recently represented a Defendant at a Trial who was being sued for the maximum jurisdiction in Small Claims Court. Our client asserted that they only owed about half. We went into the Trial asserting that position.
Prior to litigation, our client made an offer to settle for what they asserted they owed. The Plaintiff rejected it. Once sued, we did the same thing, without success. The Plaintiff wanted it all.
Prior to Trial, we served an Offer to Settle for the amount we said was owed.
When the Decision was released, the Plaintiff was successful for a few pennies less than that we offered to settle.
When the time came for our cost submissions, the Plaintiff sought costs exceeding what a self-represented party would receive.
We relied upon our Offer to request double the amount our client’s costs against the Plaintiff for failing to accept our Offer.
Pursuant to Rule 14.07 (2) of the Small Claims Court, when the Defendant makes an Offer to the Plaintiff that is not accepted, the Court can award the Defendant costs double the amount of costs a successful party would receive, if the following is met:
- The Plaintiff obtains a judgment as favourable as or less favourable than the terms of the Offer to Settle;
2. The Offer was made at least seven days before the Trial date; and
3. The Offer was not withdrawn by the Defendant and did not expire before the Trial date.
The above also applies if a Plaintiff made an Offer to a Defendant and was not accepted by the Defendant (see Rule 14.07(1)).
We succesfully relied upon our multiple attempts to settle the matter prior to litigation as leverage to obtain double the costs, and we were successful.
Whether you’re the Plaintiff or Defendant, an Offer to Settle is always a useful tool to have when it comes to requesting costs, especially if your offer is better than the outcome.