___

P sued 4 Ds for money, and for possession of some land. He failed.

But before P’s failure, D3 and D4 had made an offer to settle.

P having “lost” in his claim, was in a worse position than he would have been had he accepted the offer: [11]

The Court said P had to pay D3’s and D4’s legal costs up to the date of the offer on the “ordinary” basis.

The Court then considered whether P should have to pay D3’s and D4’s costs on the more generous “indemnity” basis from the date of the offer.

The offer was made in accordance with “the Rules” (UCPR r42.15A) entitling D3 and D4 to costs on the indemnity basis *unless the Court orders otherwise* which it will only do in an exceptional case: [21]

The P’s claim failed because D3 and D4 were the owners of the land but D2 (their son) had forged their signatures on powers of attorney and then mortgages: [23] - [25]

D3 and D4 served evidence showing they were in Australia when the forged documents were allegedly signed by them in China: [26]

The Court accepted that P could continue despite that evidence but to do so did not render this an “exceptional case” in a way that would work around the normal r42.15A consequences: [31], [33]

D3 and D4 got their indemnity costs: [38]