Nathanson, Schachter and Thompson v. Albion Securities Company Limited et al.

Nathanson, Schachter and Thompson v. Albion Securities Company Limited et al.

The appeal is dismissed; the registrar's factual findings that there was no agreement or estoppel to hourly-only billing were not clearly wrong and Arctic Installations is distinguishable because here the firm intended to charge a fair fee under s.71(4) (which can be adjusted up or down) and had captioned interim...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2004 BCSC 909
Parties
Solicitors: Nathanson, Schachter & Thompson; Client: Albion Securities Company Limited; Client: Malayan Mining and Securities Company Ltd.; Client: Northern Pacific Securities Company Limited; Client: 465911 B.C. Ltd.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Registrar Decision Under the Legal Profession Act (assessment of Legal Fees) / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Judgment)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; registrar's decision upheld
Legal Topics
Solicitor Client Retainer, Quantum Meruit, Estoppel, Fee Assessment Under Legal Profession Act S.71(4), Precedent: Arctic Installations; Sarcee
Source Language
english
Legal Ethics Fee Assessment Civil Litigation Professional Liability/insurance Solicitor Client Retainer Quantum Meruit Estoppel Fee Assessment Under Legal Profession Act S.71(4) +1 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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nathanson, Schachter & Thompson

Solicitors

Albion Securities Company Limited

Client

Malayan Mining and Securities Company Ltd.

Client

Northern Pacific Securities Company Limited

Client

465911 B.C. Ltd.

Client

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Registrar Decision Under the Legal Profession Act (assessment of Legal Fees) / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether solicitors were estopped from charging a premium/bonus beyond hourly rates by their conduct or representations
  2. 2 Whether the registrar erred in principle in allowing a 'premium' and assessing fees at $741,929 rather than the clients' $491,929
  3. 3 Whether Arctic Installations applies to preclude a post-hoc success 'bonus' where interim bills were rendered and paid

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed; the registrar's factual findings that there was no agreement or estoppel to hourly-only billing were not clearly wrong and Arctic Installations is distinguishable because here the firm intended to charge a fair fee under s.71(4) (which can be adjusted up or down) and had captioned interim bills as interim; applying the statutory factors the registrar reasonably concluded the total fee charged was fair and recoverable.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; registrar's decision upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and registrar's certificate upheld
  • Registrar's assessment allowing the solicitors' accounts in full is upheld