Sentences with phrase «defendant solicitor»

In May, complaints about the unhelpful approach of the defendant solicitors were recited.

The defendant solicitor had been instructed to draft an agreement which enshrined the terms upon which assets would be divided upon the divorce of the claimant client.

In Webb v. Birkett, 2011 ABCA 13, the Alberta Court of Appeal held that the defendant solicitor Birkett was negligent in representing the plaintiff Webb in a collaborative family law settlement.

The defendant solicitor did everything he was retained to do.

The plaintiffs unsuccessfully alleged, among other things, that the defendant solicitors failed to protect their ownership interest in the partnership dispute and forced them into a sale of their partnership interest, that the solicitors acted without their authorization or instruction, and failed to keep them properly advised of proceedings throughout.

In higher value claims, after the service of proceedings, as requested in a directions questionnaire the defendant Solicitors will usually be allowed to instruct their own medical experts (though still with the purpose of assisting the court) to examine the injured Claimant.

The statement of adjustments prepared by the defendant solicitor on behalf of the plaintiff was questioned and attacked by the opposite party in a real estate transaction.

Although the medical expert is instructed and paid for by the Claimant or Defendant Solicitors, the medical expert usually has a duty to the court to provide their report independent of who is paying them.

In higher value claims a Claimant or defendant solicitor is likely to want to have a meeting with the medical expert in order to test the strength of the expert's opinion.

The defendant solicitor would probably have done the same.

In Clark v Lucas [2009] EWHC 1953 (ch), the defendant solicitors acted for the seller, a property developer, on the sale to Mr and Mrs Clark of one of five newly built properties.

In Ferrara v. Lorenzetti, Wolfe6, the majority judgment of the Court of Appeal (Laskin and Sharpe, J.J.A.) held the plaintiff's claim against the defendant solicitor was NOT statute barred.

The defendant solicitor continued to advise Ferrara throughout the litigation that Ferrara's position was correct.

In Sheriff v. Apps et al., Carole J. Brown, J. summarily dismissed Sheriff's action against the defendant solicitors.

In his reasons Harper, J. held that the defendant solicitors were NOT liable to pay any part of the former wife's costs, even though the solicitors» drafting error in preparing her marriage contract was an important issue in the litigation between the two former spouses.

The court refused, holding that an acquittal, or the ordering of a new trial, is not conclusive of the plaintiff's innocence, and does not give rise to res judicata, issue estoppel, or abuse of process, where the defendant solicitor asserts in the malpractice action that the plaintiff was in fact guilty.

The defendant solicitors told the donors that the CRA was wrong, and that they had no obligation to pay the taxes the CRA said were owing.

Also relevant was that there was no evidence that the solicitors whom Charette had hired in 2008 advised him that he might have a claim against the defendant solicitors.

Stapleton v Howard Kennedy: Chris was instructed on behalf of the Defendant solicitors in this claim which came on for trial after the Claimant's appeal against summary judgment entered for the Defendants was allowed.

In an important defence effort, LAWPRO counsel were successful in convincing a court to rule that a family law party could not look to the defendant solicitors for any shortfall with respect to damages and costs for which the other spouse was found to be liable.

In the 15 years between the facts alleged as the basis of the claim and the bringing of the claim, the defendant solicitor died and his accounting and trust records had been destroyed.

London & Regional v Lawrence Graham: Chris was instructed on behalf of the Defendant solicitors in this professional negligence claim relating to a proposed joint venture agreement.

The defendant solicitors sought to have the action dismissed as statute barred.

Hawksford Trustees Jersey Limited — v - Halliwells: Chris is instructed on behalf of the Defendant solicitors in relation to appeals and cross appeals to be heard against the first instance judgment which allowed some heads of claim but not others.

The plaintiffs alleged that the tax opinion provided by the defendant solicitors to the scheme's promoters on the efficacy of the program was negligent, and that the solicitors should have known that the tax credits would be disallowed by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA).

Ferrara sued the defendant solicitor within two years of this decision, but more than two years from the date that the statement of adjustments was challenged, and from when litigation counsel was retained.

D — v - D: Chris was instructed on behalf of the Defendant solicitors in relation to two claims arising out of failed real estate transactions in Dubai.

The defendant solicitor took the opposite position.

Michael Gerson Investments v Haines Watts [2002] Lloyd's P.N. 493: Chris was instructed on behalf of the Defendant solicitors in this professional negligence claim involving 9 claims arising out of a failed tax avoidance scheme.

The plaintiff also wished to cross-examine the defendant solicitor's own counsel in the pending action.

In Kingsland v. Merritt, the plaintiffs invested money with Lopez, the defendant solicitor's client.

While the defendant solicitor was a witness on the appeal, he was not a party at the criminal trial or on the appeal.

The defendant solicitor had originally acted for the plaintiff.

Although the opinion of an expert witness is being sought by the claimant or defendant solicitor, their duty is primarily to the court.

Accordingly, the matter proceeded to trial only on the issue of the Defendant solicitors» negligence.

The claimants in this case were part of a large group of miners who had instructed the defendant solicitors to initiate claims against British Coal.

The defendant solicitors acted for the claimants in trade mark litigation.

The defendant solicitors, represented by Sue Carr QC, argued that NIG suffered actual damage upon the inception of the various ATE policies and that therefore all claims based upon policies incepted more than six years before Axa issued its claim were time - barred.

The defendant solicitors failed to advise the claimants that a proposed investment involving one of the claimants» directors needed the approval of a general meeting.

The defendant solicitors should be no worse off because no order for costs was made in the other proceedings.