United Furniture Warehouse LP v. 551148 B.C. Ltd. et al.
The application for summary judgment under Rule 18(6) was dismissed because the legal effect of the transfer clauses and whether tort claims were assigned or barred raised issues of construction and fact requiring a trial; however counsel's affidavit constituted a waiver of privilege limited to materials reviewed by in-house counsel in forming the opinion about the six, nine and twelve month adjustment claims, and those documents must be produced.
- Citation
- 2007 BCSC 68
- Parties
- Plaintiff/respondent: United Furniture Warehouse LP; Defendant/applicant: 551148 B.C. Ltd.; Defendant/applicant: 462307 B.C. Ltd.; Defendant/applicant: U.B.S. Realty Ltd.; Defendant/applicant: John Volken
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 16 January 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Civil (contract and Tort) / Interlocutory Applications: Rule 18(6) Summary Judgment Application and Application for Production of Documents (waiver of Privilege)
- Outcome
- Defendants' Rule 18(6) application for summary judgment dismissed; defendants' application for production of in-house counsel documents granted in part.
- Legal Topics
- Assignment of Tort Claims, Champerty, Summary Judgment Under Rule 18(6), Waiver of Solicitor Client Privilege, In House Counsel Privilege, Production of Documents, Construction of Purchase and Sale Agreement, Assumption of Liabilities, Adjustment Holdback/escrow
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
United Furniture Warehouse LP
Plaintiff/respondent
551148 B.C. Ltd.
Defendant/applicant
462307 B.C. Ltd.
Defendant/applicant
U.B.S. Realty Ltd.
Defendant/applicant
John Volken
Defendant/applicant
Procedural Posture
Civil (contract and Tort) / Interlocutory Applications: Rule 18(6) Summary Judgment Application and Application for Production of Documents (waiver of Privilege)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the assignee (plaintiff) has standing to pursue tort claims alleged to arise out of the Purchase Agreement following assignment
- 2 Whether clauses in the master transfer agreement operate to assign non-personal tort causes of action to the plaintiff
- 3 Whether any purported assignment of non-personal tort claims would be champertous and thus unenforceable
Ratio Decidendi
The application for summary judgment under Rule 18(6) was dismissed because the legal effect of the transfer clauses and whether tort claims were assigned or barred raised issues of construction and fact requiring a trial; however counsel's affidavit constituted a waiver of privilege limited to materials reviewed by in-house counsel in forming the opinion about the six, nine and twelve month adjustment claims, and those documents must be produced.
Court Disposition
Defendants' Rule 18(6) application for summary judgment dismissed; defendants' application for production of in-house counsel documents granted in part.
Orders
- Rule 18(6) summary judgment application dismissed
- Plaintiff to produce all documents in in-house counsel's possession or control that were reviewed in formulating the opinion that the six month, nine month and twelve month claims were valid, including accounting records, agreements, correspondence and memoranda
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment