Claimant denied indemnity costs after rejecting settlement offers
⚖️ Legal holding
A plaintiff is not entitled to indemnity costs if they have achieved some success in the proceedings and acted reasonably.
📚 Full judgment
The summary, holding and questions above are VadeLab’s own material. The official decision itself is published by the court, and we do not reproduce it on this page.
📄 Read the full judgment⚖️ View on the official court website ↗
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The plaintiff had some success in the proceedings by showing the share valuation was too low.
- The plaintiff did not act unreasonably in pursuing the case despite offers to buy his shares.
- The case involved contested factual issues, so the outcome was not obvious.
- The question of applying a minority discount to shares was complex and not clearly resolved by case law.
- The court found nothing unreasonable about how the plaintiff and his representatives conducted the proceedings.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The defendants argued that their offers were like settlement offers and were unreasonably rejected.
- The defendants argued the plaintiff acted unreasonably by starting and continuing the case without getting a better offer.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the claimant should be granted indemnity costs after rejecting settlement offers.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may not be granted indemnity costs if they have achieved some success in the proceedings and acted reasonably.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify the evidence or documents that mattered.