Harriss v. Keating Construction Company

Harriss v. Keating Construction Company

The court exercised its discretion under Civil Procedure Rules 77.02, 77.06, 77.07 and 77.08 to depart from tariff because the defendants pursued an inflated counterclaim, relied on their own expert inconsistently, and sent the claim to a collection agency causing unnecessary litigation; plaintiffs incurred...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2014 NSSC 135
Parties
Plaintiffs: Patricia Harriss; Kevin Sutherland; Defendants: Keating Construction Company Limited; Allan R. Keating
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract Dispute/costs Assessment / Post Trial Decision on Costs
Outcome
Costs awarded to Plaintiffs against Defendants; counterclaim dismissed with costs to Plaintiffs; Plaintiffs' personal claim against Keating dismissed without costs to Defendants
Legal Topics
Costs Assessment, Tariff and Lump Sum Costs, Counterclaim, Collection Agency Referral, Disbursements
Source Language
english
Contract Law Civil Procedure Costs and Fees Debt Collection Costs Assessment Tariff and Lump Sum Costs Counterclaim Collection Agency Referral +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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patricia Harriss; Kevin Sutherland

Plaintiffs

Keating Construction Company Limited; Allan R. Keating

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract Dispute/costs Assessment / Post Trial Decision on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be fixed by tariff only or increased above tariff
  2. 2 Appropriate quantum of costs and disbursements to award
  3. 3 Whether defendants' conduct (inflated counterclaim, collection agency referral) warrants enhanced costs

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its discretion under Civil Procedure Rules 77.02, 77.06, 77.07 and 77.08 to depart from tariff because the defendants pursued an inflated counterclaim, relied on their own expert inconsistently, and sent the claim to a collection agency causing unnecessary litigation; plaintiffs incurred substantial and reasonable legal fees (deemed at least $65,000) and partial success on key issues justified a lump sum and above-tariff award: $8,000 (main action tariff uplift), $20,000 (lump sum for counterclaim), $9,000 (trial length), plus allowed disbursements $10,710.46, totaling $47,710.46.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to Plaintiffs against Defendants; counterclaim dismissed with costs to Plaintiffs; Plaintiffs' personal claim against Keating dismissed without costs to Defendants

Orders

  • Award Plaintiffs costs for Main Action $8,000.00
  • Award Plaintiffs lump sum for Counterclaim $20,000.00