Kemp v. Ross

Kemp v. Ross

Registrar found an exception to the general rule applied: the first five days of the lawyer's transcript were relied upon by both parties and the court, there was a substantial delay of 11 months between hearings, and the later testimony sought to clarify or contradict earlier evidence; therefore the transcript was necessarily and properly incurred and $2,819.13 plus two tariff units under Appendix B item 36 were awarded.

Citation
2021 BCSC 447
Parties
Client: Brenlee Kemp; Solicitor: Alan M. Ross dba A.M. Ross Law Corporation and McLeod Ross Litigation Lawyers
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Costs Assessment / Taxation of Costs Before Registrar (written Submissions)
Outcome
Disbursement allowed in full
Legal Topics
Transcript Disbursement, Necessity of Expenses, Delay Between Proceedings, Taxation of Costs
Source Language
English
Costs Civil Procedure Evidence Transcript Disbursement Necessity of Expenses Delay Between Proceedings Taxation of Costs

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brenlee Kemp

Client

Alan M. Ross dba A.M. Ross Law Corporation and McLeod Ross Litigation Lawyers

Solicitor

Procedural Posture

Costs Assessment / Taxation of Costs Before Registrar (written Submissions)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the transcript disbursement was necessarily or properly incurred
  2. 2 Whether the 11 month delay between proceedings justified obtaining transcripts
  3. 3 Whether the transcripts were relied upon by the parties and the court and therefore necessary

Ratio Decidendi

Registrar found an exception to the general rule applied: the first five days of the lawyer's transcript were relied upon by both parties and the court, there was a substantial delay of 11 months between hearings, and the later testimony sought to clarify or contradict earlier evidence; therefore the transcript was necessarily and properly incurred and $2,819.13 plus two tariff units under Appendix B item 36 were awarded.

Court Disposition

Disbursement allowed in full

Orders

  • Awarded $2,819.13 for transcript disbursement
  • Awarded two additional tariff units under Appendix B item 36