The plaintiff, Quinlan Brothers’, claim was for $150,000.00, plus pre-judgment interest and costs, and had the potential to be “a significant amount”. The defendant was successful and the Quinlan Brothers’ claim was dismissed. The judge stated that had the Quinlan Brothers been successful, it had only proven damages totaling $100,000.00.

Quinlan Brothers argued that Coady’s settlement offer was nominal and categorized it as being unreasonable and intended to discourage settlement. The Court agreed, and went further to suggest that the purpose of the offer was to form a foundation for the present costs application.

The Court highlighted that the obvious purpose of Rule 20A is to encourage out- of-court resolution of the case by the imposition of adverse costs consequences
in order to promote the acceptance of a reasonable offer in the circumstances involved. Rule 20A’s objective is to encourage settlement, not to provide a vehicle for the creation of a costs advantage. Where the offer is unreasonable, the Court is not bound to award higher costs to the party making the rejected offer. The Court must examine whether or not the plaintiff knew, or ought to have known, that the claim was devoid of merit. Only in such cases is rejecting even an extremely low offer worthy of the sanction of increased costs. The judge determined that there was no certainty at the time the offer was made that the claim was devoid of merit, and denied the application.