B.S.A. Investors Ltd. et al. v. Mosly et al., [2005] B.C.T.C. 703 (SC)

JudgeWilliamson, J.
CourtSupreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
Case DateMay 06, 2005
JurisdictionBritish Columbia
Citations[2005] B.C.T.C. 703 (SC);2005 BCSC 703

BSA Inv. Ltd. v. Mosly, [2005] B.C.T.C. 703 (SC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] B.C.T.C. TBEd. MY.068

B.S.A. Investors Ltd. and Gang Ranch Ltd. (plaintiffs) v. Adel Mosly, Saudi Arabian-Canadian Business Corporation and Douglas Symes & Brissenden (defendants)

(S004649; 2005 BCSC 703)

Indexed As: B.S.A. Investors Ltd. et al. v. Mosly et al.

British Columbia Supreme Court

Vancouver

Williamson, J.

May 11, 2005.

Summary:

This headnote contains no summary.

Practice - Topic 7245.3

Costs - Party and party costs - Offers to settle - Where more than one offer to settle (incl. where more than one action tried together) - See paragraphs 8 to 25.

Practice - Topic 7250

Costs - Party and party costs - Offers to settle - Joint offers - See paragraphs 8 to 25.

Cases Noticed:

Starling v. Martin et al. [1996] B.C.T.C. Uned. I34 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 10].

Onisiforou v. Rose et al. (1998), 114 O.A.C. 385; 41 O.R.(3d) 737 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

McCallum v. Hough et al., [2001] B.C.T.C. 280; 88 B.C.L.R.(3d) 175 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 12].

Gemmell v. Reddicorp, [2003] B.C.T.C. Uned. 54; 2003 BCSC 525, refd to. [para. 13].

Massop v. Huang, [2003] B.C.T.C. 1752; 2003 BCSC 1752, refd to. [para. 14].

Unternaher v. Wheat Sheaf Inn Ltd. et al. (1998), 114 B.C.A.C. 299; 186 W.A.C. 299 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Counsel:

Daniel Bennett, for the plaintiffs;

Jack Webster and Paul Warnett, for the defendant, Douglas Symes & Brissenden;

No one appeared for the defendants, Adel Mosly and Saudi Arabian-Canadian Business Corporation.

This case was heard on May 6, 2005, before Williamson, J., of the British Columbia Supreme Court, who delivered the following decision on May 11, 2005.

Please note: The following judgment has not been edited.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Laidar Holdings Ltd. v. Lindt & Sprungli (Canada) Inc., 2019 BCSC 83
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • January 24, 2019
    ...defendants, it is not inappropriate to refuse an offer to settle, citing B.S.A. Investors Ltd. and Gang Ranch Ltd. v. Mosly et al., 2005 BCSC 703 [B.S.A. [90] Lindt submits that the DTZ Vancouver offer was so low that it would only have been reasonably accepted if both Lindt and DTZ had no ......
  • Marszalek Estate et al. v. Bishop et al., 2007 BCSC 324
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • March 8, 2007
    ...circumstances of a case should determine whether or not there is a need for separate offers. In B.S.A. Investors Ltd. v. Mosly , 2005 BCSC 703, Williamson J. took a similar approach and concluded that whether a joint offer by non-joint defendants may succeed under Rule 37(2) and (23) depend......
  • BSA Inv. Ltd. v. Mosly, [2007] B.C.A.C. Uned. 158 (CA)
    • Canada
    • British Columbia Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
    • November 19, 2007
    ...to limit the judgment to B.S.A. and thus did not squarely deal with the issue of special costs. The trial judge's supplemental reasons (2005 BCSC 703) indicate that DSB's arguments to the trial judge in respect of denying B.S.A. its costs are essentially the same as the arguments addressed ......
3 cases
  • Laidar Holdings Ltd. v. Lindt & Sprungli (Canada) Inc., 2019 BCSC 83
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • January 24, 2019
    ...defendants, it is not inappropriate to refuse an offer to settle, citing B.S.A. Investors Ltd. and Gang Ranch Ltd. v. Mosly et al., 2005 BCSC 703 [B.S.A. [90] Lindt submits that the DTZ Vancouver offer was so low that it would only have been reasonably accepted if both Lindt and DTZ had no ......
  • Marszalek Estate et al. v. Bishop et al., 2007 BCSC 324
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • March 8, 2007
    ...circumstances of a case should determine whether or not there is a need for separate offers. In B.S.A. Investors Ltd. v. Mosly , 2005 BCSC 703, Williamson J. took a similar approach and concluded that whether a joint offer by non-joint defendants may succeed under Rule 37(2) and (23) depend......
  • BSA Inv. Ltd. v. Mosly, [2007] B.C.A.C. Uned. 158 (CA)
    • Canada
    • British Columbia Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
    • November 19, 2007
    ...to limit the judgment to B.S.A. and thus did not squarely deal with the issue of special costs. The trial judge's supplemental reasons (2005 BCSC 703) indicate that DSB's arguments to the trial judge in respect of denying B.S.A. its costs are essentially the same as the arguments addressed ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT