Long v. Sawchuk

Long v. Sawchuk

The registrar held the 25% contingency, as judged by circumstances known when signed, was unreasonable and modified it to 20% for work up to the judgment of Warren J.; the contingent agreement did not extend to the appeal absent a clear renewed agreement, and appeal fees were fixed on quantum meruit at $30,000;...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2001 BCSC 1209
Parties
Solicitors: Long, Miller and Norman D. Mullins, Q.C.; Client: Corinne Sawchuk
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 August 2001
Procedural Posture
Review Under Legal Profession Act of Contingent Fee Agreement and Accounts (s.68 and S.70) / Registrar Hearing / Reasons for Decision by Master Scarth (as Registrar)
Outcome
Contingent fee agreement modified; appeal fees assessed separately; disbursements and costs awarded
Legal Topics
Contingency Fee Review, Quantum Meruit, Wills Variation Act Claim, Solicitor Client Accounts, Modification of Retainer
Source Language
english
Legal Profession Estate Law Civil Procedure Costs and Fees Appeal Contingency Fee Review Quantum Meruit Wills Variation Act Claim +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Long, Miller and Norman D. Mullins, Q.C.

Solicitors

Corinne Sawchuk

Client

Procedural Posture

Review Under Legal Profession Act of Contingent Fee Agreement and Accounts (s.68 and S.70) / Registrar Hearing / Reasons for Decision by Master Scarth (as Registrar)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contingent fee agreement (25%) was unfair or unreasonable under s.68 of the Legal Profession Act at the time it was entered into
  2. 2 Whether the contingent fee agreement extended to the appeal and, if not, what fees are payable for appeal work

Ratio Decidendi

The registrar held the 25% contingency, as judged by circumstances known when signed, was unreasonable and modified it to 20% for work up to the judgment of Warren J.; the contingent agreement did not extend to the appeal absent a clear renewed agreement, and appeal fees were fixed on quantum meruit at $30,000; disbursements were allowed and client awarded costs on Scale 3.

Court Disposition

Contingent fee agreement modified; appeal fees assessed separately; disbursements and costs awarded

Orders

  • Contingent fee reduced to 20% of amount recovered pursuant to the judgment of Warren J., excluding costs
  • Contingent fee did not apply to the appeal; solicitors awarded $30,000 on quantum meruit for appeal work