Tweet
Following is an excerpt from CanLii.
Offer #1 qualifies as a Rule 18 offer. It was made at least seven days before the trial, it is signed by both Ms. Nanayakkara and her lawyer, and it did not expire, nor was it withdrawn, before the trial started. The terms of the offer are:
• Custody to the wife.
• Two non-consecutive weeks of summer access to the husband, as well as a contribution by the wife of $750 per visit, for up to four additional visits in Newfoundland (provided the husband is up-to-date on his support payments).
• Guideline support and a proportionate share of special expenses, retroactive to July 4, 2007.
• Spousal support of $1,000 per month.
• The piano to be returned to the wife.
• No costs if accepted by May 1, thereafter $10,000 costs.
[13] Unfortunately, this offer was not severable There would have been no disadvantage to the wife in making the custody offer, in particular, severable from the financial and property terms. Severable offers are an underused tool that can confer considerable settlement and cost advantages. Because of the full recovery provisions of Rule 18(14), they can provide much more flexibility to the court to award full recovery for at least a portion of the overall costs, if the party is successful on only some of the issues. Had the custody terms of the wife’s offer been severable from the other terms, I would have been prepared to consider ordering full recovery costs on the custody issue from the date of the offer forward. As this was the majority of the trial time, that would have been a significant cost advantage to the wife.
[14] However, as the offer was not severable, the wife would have to do as well or better than all the terms of the offer, in order to take advantage of the full recovery cost provisions of Rule 18(14). Since the husband got an additional week of access, as well as an order that spousal support would reduce from $1000 in three years, Ms. Nanayakkara did not do as well as or better than her offer in its totality. Rule 18(14) does not apply but I can take this offer into account in determining costs under Rule 24, along with any other offers that have been made (Rule 18(16)).
.....Can someone shed some light on what does the judge mean by saying not severable.
what does he mean by this statement. Is he trying to say that offers should be broken down, example not put custody and spousal support in one offer? into multiple offers so that a party is successful on the complete offer? .... Severable offers are an underused tool that can confer considerable settlement and cost advantages.
thanks for your input.
Offer #1 qualifies as a Rule 18 offer. It was made at least seven days before the trial, it is signed by both Ms. Nanayakkara and her lawyer, and it did not expire, nor was it withdrawn, before the trial started. The terms of the offer are:
• Custody to the wife.
• Two non-consecutive weeks of summer access to the husband, as well as a contribution by the wife of $750 per visit, for up to four additional visits in Newfoundland (provided the husband is up-to-date on his support payments).
• Guideline support and a proportionate share of special expenses, retroactive to July 4, 2007.
• Spousal support of $1,000 per month.
• The piano to be returned to the wife.
• No costs if accepted by May 1, thereafter $10,000 costs.
[13] Unfortunately, this offer was not severable There would have been no disadvantage to the wife in making the custody offer, in particular, severable from the financial and property terms. Severable offers are an underused tool that can confer considerable settlement and cost advantages. Because of the full recovery provisions of Rule 18(14), they can provide much more flexibility to the court to award full recovery for at least a portion of the overall costs, if the party is successful on only some of the issues. Had the custody terms of the wife’s offer been severable from the other terms, I would have been prepared to consider ordering full recovery costs on the custody issue from the date of the offer forward. As this was the majority of the trial time, that would have been a significant cost advantage to the wife.
[14] However, as the offer was not severable, the wife would have to do as well or better than all the terms of the offer, in order to take advantage of the full recovery cost provisions of Rule 18(14). Since the husband got an additional week of access, as well as an order that spousal support would reduce from $1000 in three years, Ms. Nanayakkara did not do as well as or better than her offer in its totality. Rule 18(14) does not apply but I can take this offer into account in determining costs under Rule 24, along with any other offers that have been made (Rule 18(16)).
.....Can someone shed some light on what does the judge mean by saying not severable.
what does he mean by this statement. Is he trying to say that offers should be broken down, example not put custody and spousal support in one offer? into multiple offers so that a party is successful on the complete offer? .... Severable offers are an underused tool that can confer considerable settlement and cost advantages.
thanks for your input.
Comment