Mide-Wilson v. Hungerford Tomyn Lawrenson and Nichols

Mide-Wilson v. Hungerford Tomyn Lawrenson and Nichols

The Court upheld the registrar's finding that the CFA was neither unfair nor unreasonable at the time it was entered into but found the registrar erred in giving excessive weight to the contractual percentage when fixing quantum; the fee awarded by the registrar ($9,000,000) was disproportionate to work performed and threatened the integrity of the profession, so the court substituted a proper fee of $5,000,000 (plus taxes), directing adjustments for interest and an amended certificate.

Citation
2013 BCSC 374
Parties
Appellant (client): Kirsten Mide-Wilson; Respondents (solicitors): Hungerford Tomyn Lawrenson and Nichols
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Contingency Fee Agreement Examination and Bill Review Under the Legal Profession Act / Appeal From Registrar's Decision (supreme Court of British Columbia)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part: registrar's confirmation of CFA upheld; registrar's quantum reduced
Legal Topics
Contingency Fee Agreement Fairness, Contingency Fee Agreement Reasonableness, Bill Review Under S.70 LPA, Valuation of Trust Assets, Registrar Review Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Legal Profession Law Estate Litigation Civil Procedure Valuation Law Contingency Fee Agreement Fairness Contingency Fee Agreement Reasonableness Bill Review Under S.70 LPA Valuation of Trust Assets +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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kirsten Mide-Wilson

Appellant (client)

Hungerford Tomyn Lawrenson and Nichols

Respondents (solicitors)

Procedural Posture

Contingency Fee Agreement Examination and Bill Review Under the Legal Profession Act / Appeal From Registrar's Decision (supreme Court of British Columbia)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contingency fee agreement (CFA) was unfair when entered into under s.68 LPA
  2. 2 Whether the CFA was unreasonable at the time it was entered into under s.68 LPA
  3. 3 Whether the registrar erred in valuing the trust assets (JCL shares)

Ratio Decidendi

The Court upheld the registrar's finding that the CFA was neither unfair nor unreasonable at the time it was entered into but found the registrar erred in giving excessive weight to the contractual percentage when fixing quantum; the fee awarded by the registrar ($9,000,000) was disproportionate to work performed and threatened the integrity of the profession, so the court substituted a proper fee of $5,000,000 (plus taxes), directing adjustments for interest and an amended certificate.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part: registrar's confirmation of CFA upheld; registrar's quantum reduced

Orders

  • Substitute fee awarded to Solicitors: CAD 5000000
  • Taxes on fees assessed at CAD 600000