Holness and Small Law Group v. Parmar

Holness and Small Law Group v. Parmar

Master Nielsen held that the registrar/master has broad discretion under s.72(2) LPA to consider an offer to settle as a "special circumstance"; exercising that discretion, and given that both parties had some success and the settlement offer was reasonable and should with hindsight have been accepted, the court declined to award costs to either party and ordered each to bear their own costs.

Citation
2022 BCSC 1790
Parties
Solicitor: Holness and Small Law Group Professional Law Corporation and Jacqueline A. Small; Client: Harprit Singh Parmar
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Legal Profession Act Review (solicitors' Bill Review) / Post Review Costs Application
Outcome
No party awarded costs; each party to bear their own costs.
Legal Topics
Quantum Meruit, Costs Award, Offer to Settle, Double Costs (rule 37), Section 72 LPA Special Circumstances
Source Language
English
Professional Regulation Costs Civil Procedure Solicitor Client Retainer Disputes Quantum Meruit Costs Award Offer to Settle Double Costs (rule 37) +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Holness and Small Law Group Professional Law Corporation and Jacqueline A. Small

Solicitor

Harprit Singh Parmar

Client

Procedural Posture

Legal Profession Act Review (solicitors' Bill Review) / Post Review Costs Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether double costs under Rule 37 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules apply to a review under the Legal Profession Act
  2. 2 Whether an offer to settle constitutes "special circumstances" under s.72(2) of the Legal Profession Act permitting departure from statutory taxation cost rules
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded when the client successfully taxed off more than one-sixth of the bill but the solicitor made a settlement offer later beaten

Ratio Decidendi

Master Nielsen held that the registrar/master has broad discretion under s.72(2) LPA to consider an offer to settle as a "special circumstance"; exercising that discretion, and given that both parties had some success and the settlement offer was reasonable and should with hindsight have been accepted, the court declined to award costs to either party and ordered each to bear their own costs.

Court Disposition

No party awarded costs; each party to bear their own costs.

Orders

  • No costs awarded to either party; each party shall bear their own costs of the LPA review