Strayer,
J:—I
issued
reasons
for
judgment
in
this
case
on
February
15,
1985.
I
requested
counsel
for
the
defendant
to
draft
a
judgment
in
accordance
with
the
reasons
and
if
necessary
to
seek
further
directions.
Counsel
for
both
parties
appeared
before
me
to
seek
further
directions
with
respect
to
the
preparation
of
the
judgment
and
counsel
for
the
plaintiff
sought
special
directions
concerning
costs
pursuant
to
Rule
344(7)(b).
With
respect
to
the
substantive
questions,
counsel
are
agreed
that
the
figures
as
corrected
in
paragraph
(a)
of
the
plaintiffs
draft
of
the
judgment
filed
on
April
19,
1985
are
correct.
The
judgment
to
be
submitted
for
my
approval
should
be
amended
accordingly.
Counsel
are
agreed
that
paragraphs
(b),
(c)
and
(d)
as
set
out
in
the
defendant’s
draft,
also
filed
on
April
19,
1985
are
correct.
With
respect
to
paragraph
(e)
I
have
concluded
that
the
“ceding
commissions”,
paid
by
OI
to
the
plaintiffs
insurers
with
respect
to
reinsurance
purchased
by
them
from
OI,
are
properly
deductible
from
the
plaintiffs
income.
It
seems
to
me
that
they
are
in
the
same
position
as
if
they
had
never
been
paid
to
OI
directly
or
indirectly
by
the
plaintiff,
but
had
instead
been
retained
by
the
insurers.
With
respect
to
the
administrative
expenses
of
OI,
as
set
out
in
item
(iv)
under
paragraph
(e)
of
the
plaintiffs
draft
of
the
judgment,
I
believe
these
should
be
attributed
to
the
plaintiffs
income.
I
found
that
OI
was
the
plaintiffs
instrumentality
for
the
purposes
of
operating,
in
effect,
a
reserve
fund
for
the
plaintiff.
It
appears
to
me
that
these
administrative
expenses
were
simply
the
costs
of
management
of
that
reserve
fund
and
in
my
view
are
no
more
deductible
from
the
plaintiffs
income
than
the
fund
itself.
As
to
costs,
counsel
for
the
plaintiff
has
pointed
out
that
I
stated
in
my
reasons
for
judgment
that
“The
defendant
being
principally
successful
is
entitled
to
its
costs”.
He
demonstrated
that,
depending
on
what
direction
I
give
with
respect
to
finalizing
the
judgment,
the
plaintiff
will
have
succeeded
with
respect
to
between
39.23
per
cent
and
46.68
per
cent
of
the
total
amount
in
dispute.
He
further
points
out
that
with
respect
to
interest
payments
made
by
the
plaintiff
in
1970
and
1971
to
Consolidated
Paper
(Bahamas)
Limited,
which
the
Minister
disallowed,
which
the
plaintiff
appealed,
and
which
the
defendant
did
not
agree
to
settle
in
favour
of
the
plaintiff
until
about
a
week
before
the
trial,
consideration
should
be
given
in
assessing
costs
to
the
expenses
unnecessarily
incurred
by
the
plaintiff
because
of
the
lateness
of
the
settlement.
The
plaintiffs
submission
is
that
costs
in
fact
should
be
awarded
to
it
rather
than
to
the
defendant.
I
am
persuaded
that
I
should
revise
my
award
as
to
costs.
Because
of
the
complexity
of
the
calculations
it
appeared
to
me
at
the
time
when
my
reasons
were
written
that
the
net
result
would
be
very
substantially
in
favour
of
the
defendant.
It
now
appears
to
me
in
the
light
of
the
further
information
provided
by
counsel
for
the
plaintiff,
which
counsel
for
the
defendant
does
not
dispute,
and
in
the
light
of
my
ruling
above
with
respect
to
the
“ceding
commissions”,
that
the
outcome
is
much
more
evenly
balanced
than
I
had
thought.
Although
the
defendant
is
still
successful
by
an
amount
in
excess
of
50
per
cent,
though
less
than
60
per
cent,
of
the
total
amount
in
issue,
I
have
taken
into
account
the
late
settlement
by
the
defendant
in
favour
of
the
plaintiff
with
respect
to
the
Consolidated
Paper
(Bahamas)
Limited
interest
payments.
I
am
satisfied
that
pursuant
to
Rule
344(7)(b)
I
am
at
this
stage
able
to
revise
my
direction
as
to
costs.
It
appears
to
me
that
the
“special
direction”
referred
to
in
Rule
344(7)
includes
any
direction
in
exercise
of
the
discretion
as
to
costs
as
provided
in
Rule
344.
I
will
therefore
direct
that
the
judgment
provide
that
no
costs
be
awarded
to
either
party.
The
draft
judgment
should
be
revised
in
accordance
with
the
above
and,
if
there
are
no
further
problems,
submitted
under
Rule
324
for
final
approval.
ORDER
It
is
hereby
ordered
that
the
judgment
to
be
pronounced
shall
be
drafted
along
the
lines
of
the
draft
filed
by
the
defendant
on
April
19,
1985
but
with
the
following
modifications:
1.
Correction
of
paragraph
(a)
as
proposed
by
counsel
for
the
plaintiff
in
his
draft
filed
the
same
day
and
accepted
by
counsel
for
the
defendant.
2.
Correction
of
paragraph
(e)
by
the
inclusion
of
item
(iii)
of
the
plaintiffs
said
draft,
such
item
containing
amounts
to
be
subtracted
from
the
deductions
which
are
to
be
disallowed
in
the
computation
of
plaintiffs
income.
3.
Alteration
of
paragraph
(f)
to
provide
that
no
costs
are
awarded
to
either
party.
Order
accordingly.
Email this Content