Malik (Estate of) v. State Petroleum Corporation

Malik (Estate of) v. State Petroleum Corporation

Malik was entitled to a quantum meruit finder’s fee for introductions and assistance that materially contributed to State acquiring concessions from late 1991 to August 1993; gratuitous information provided in May 1991 was not compensable; VSE guidelines inform valuation and impose an upper limit to be shared among...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2009 BCCA 505
Parties
Respondent (plaintiff): Imam Daud Malik (Estate) by Hasina Ranes Shabazz, representative ad litem; Appellants (defendants): State Petroleum Corporation and Arakis Energy Corporation
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (quantum Meruit/finder's Fee) / Decision on Appeal by Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; trial judge's award set aside and substituted judgment entered for estate in the amount determined on appeal with deductions and interest
Legal Topics
Quantum Meruit, Finder's Fee, Valuation of Asset, Vancouver Stock Exchange Guidelines, Pre Judgment Interest
Source Language
english
Unjust Enrichment Contract Law Agency Securities Regulation Quantum Meruit Finder's Fee Valuation of Asset Vancouver Stock Exchange Guidelines +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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Imam Daud Malik (Estate) by Hasina Ranes Shabazz, representative ad litem

Respondent (plaintiff)

State Petroleum Corporation and Arakis Energy Corporation

Appellants (defendants)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (quantum Meruit/finder's Fee) / Decision on Appeal by Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Malik was entitled to a quantum meruit/finder's fee
  2. 2 Proper measure and valuation of the fee (asset value to State)
  3. 3 Whether VSE guidelines constrain or cap the fee and require sharing among finders

Ratio Decidendi

Malik was entitled to a quantum meruit finder’s fee for introductions and assistance that materially contributed to State acquiring concessions from late 1991 to August 1993; gratuitous information provided in May 1991 was not compensable; VSE guidelines inform valuation and impose an upper limit to be shared among finders; on the evidence Malik's services warranted $500,000, State alone liable, with deductions for prior payments and settlement and pre-judgment interest from 1 September 1993.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; trial judge's award set aside and substituted judgment entered for estate in the amount determined on appeal with deductions and interest

Orders

  • Set aside trial judgment and substitute judgment for the estate in finder’s fee of CAD 500000 less prior payments and settlement totalling CAD 115000
  • Award judgment to estate for the net principal amount (CAD 385000) plus pre-judgment interest commencing 1 September 1993 and adjusted on dates of payments received