Facts
This case was about the distribution of the costs of a precautionary taking of evidence. The lower court had decided that the costs of the expert opinion within the framework of the precautionary taking of evidence were to be borne one-third each by the applicant and the two respondents, as all parties had asked additional questions.
One of the respondents (the appellant) appealed against this cost decision. She argued that she should not have to contribute proportionately to an expert opinion that merely confirmed that she was not responsible for the damages that had occurred.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court upheld the appeal. It stated that in a precautionary taking of evidence, the applicant generally has to bear the costs, subject to a different distribution in the main proceedings. Mere additional or explanatory questions from the respondents that do not exceed the framework set by the applicant do not trigger a cost obligation for the respondents.
The Federal Supreme Court considered it unreasonable to burden the appellant with costs solely because she had asked additional questions that served the…