Contingency agreement in private injury case falls small: Alberta court

Denis requested the court to approve the payment of his charges of $10,327.33 out of the settlement money in line with the phrases of a contingency charge arrangement. The general public trustee agreed that the settlement ought to be approved but objected to the amount of money of service fees that Denis sought.

Agreement unenforceable

In Stanchfield v Doe, 2023 ABKB 273, the Court docket of King’s Bench of Alberta granted the partial consent judgment relating to the 2nd incident. It approved the settlement of the insignificant plaintiff’s statements because it identified the settlement acceptable.

The courtroom awarded Denis $7,637.65 out of the settlement proceeds, requested the payment of the remaining net sum of $19,212.59 to the mother as the slight plaintiff’s guardian, and awarded no costs of the software.

The court found Denis entitled to $6,020 as a affordable price for a lawyer’s expenses beneath r. 10.2. Like merchandise and expert services tax, that amount should really be enhanced to $6,321. Like disbursements and other costs, that amount need to be lifted to $7,637.65, to be paid out of the settlement resources under s. 4(4)(c) of the Minors’ Property Act.

The contingency cost settlement was unenforceable for the reason that it did not comply with r. 10.7 of the Alberta Rules of Court. The settlement failed to involve the subsequent:

Leave a Reply