Michael Blaxland Personal Law Corp. v. Clendenning

Michael Blaxland Personal Law Corp. v. Clendenning

The contingency fee clause was ambiguous and must be construed contra proferentem against the appellant; the appellant withdrew from the retainer by refusing to continue without payment from the $20,000 and clause 17 precludes fee entitlement in those circumstances; additionally the $20,000 was an interim "on account" payment, not an amount "recovered," therefore no fee was earned and the Registrar's denial of fees is upheld.

Citation
2000 BCCA 252
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: MICHAEL BLAXLAND PERSONAL LAW CORPORATION; Respondent / Defendant: COLETTE CLENDENNING
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 April 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Registrar's Review of a Solicitor's Bill Under the Legal Professions Act and From Dismissal by the Supreme Court / Court of Appeal Oral Reasons; Final Appellate Disposition
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Contingency Fee Agreement, Bill Review Under Legal Professions Act S.78, Termination of Retainer, Contra Proferentem, Interim/on Account Payments
Source Language
English
Legal Profession Contract Civil Procedure Employment Law Contingency Fee Agreement Bill Review Under Legal Professions Act S.78 Termination of Retainer Contra Proferentem +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MICHAEL BLAXLAND PERSONAL LAW CORPORATION

Appellant / Plaintiff

COLETTE CLENDENNING

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Registrar's Review of a Solicitor's Bill Under the Legal Professions Act and From Dismissal by the Supreme Court / Court of Appeal Oral Reasons; Final Appellate Disposition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether solicitor entitled to a fee under the contingency fee agreement after terminating the retainer by refusing to continue without payment
  2. 2 Whether the $20,000 ordered as interim payment constituted an "amount recovered" for purposes of a 33% contingency fee
  3. 3 Whether the contingency fee clause was ambiguous and, if so, whether ambiguity should be resolved against the drafter (contra proferentem)

Ratio Decidendi

The contingency fee clause was ambiguous and must be construed contra proferentem against the appellant; the appellant withdrew from the retainer by refusing to continue without payment from the $20,000 and clause 17 precludes fee entitlement in those circumstances; additionally the $20,000 was an interim "on account" payment, not an amount "recovered," therefore no fee was earned and the Registrar's denial of fees is upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Registrar's decision denying payment of fees to appellant affirmed.