Background
Suy Thi Nguyen and Tran Tuan Linh Pham were involved in family-law litigation. On December 9, 2025, the Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Pham’s motion to extend the time to serve and file an appeal from an August 5, 2025 judgment of Vella J.
The court awarded Ms. Nguyen the costs of that extension motion and permitted payment from Mr. Pham’s share of matrimonial-home sale proceeds held in trust. The parties subsequently agreed that the costs would be fixed at $7,500, payable from Mr. Pham’s non-trust funds, while his trust share would be applied exclusively to the trial-level costs award. When the $7,500 was not paid, Ms. Nguyen sought to settle the terms of the order. Mr. Pham objected.
The Court’s Holding
Roberts J.A. approved Ms. Nguyen’s draft order. The correspondence between counsel established that the parties had settled the costs issue on the terms reflected in the draft, and Mr. Pham’s submissions did not displace that agreement.
The court held that the $7,500 all-inclusive amount was fair and reasonable, noting it was lower than the $8,368.22 in partial-indemnity costs Ms. Nguyen had claimed. It also held that permitting costs to be paid from Mr. Pham’s trust share did not make that fund the exclusive source of payment. If those funds were insufficient, Mr. Pham remained responsible for the costs from other funds.
Key Takeaways
- A settled costs agreement documented in counsel correspondence can govern the final form of an appellate order.
- Permission to pay costs from trust funds does not necessarily limit recovery to those funds.
- The court approved a $7,500 all-inclusive costs award as fair and reasonable.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that parties must honour agreed costs terms, particularly where the record clearly documents the settlement. It also confirms that an order identifying a trust fund as a possible payment source does not, without limiting language, excuse a debtor from paying any remaining costs personally.