2 total
The Court of Appeal awarded $75,000 in costs to the successful respondents following an appeal and cross-appeal.
This is a costs endorsement following an appeal and cross-appeal in a civil matter.
The respondents (Jarbeaus) were successful on the cross-appeal while the appellant (McLean) was unsuccessful on the appeal.
The court awarded costs to the Jarbeaus in the amount of $75,000, allocated as $18,000 to the cross-appeal and $57,000 to the appeal, inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.
The court declined to fix prejudgment interest or vary the trial costs award of $231,000.
The Court of Appeal affirmed that a plaintiff proving solicitor's negligence through a trial within a trial is entitled to full recovery, not a probabilistic loss of chance.
The respondents purchased a defective new home from a builder and hired a negligent lawyer who failed to sue the engineer within the limitation period, incorrectly advising them they had no cause of action against the engineer.
After settling their first action, the respondents sued the lawyer for negligence.
The trial judge admitted the lawyer's negligence but characterized both the jury's damage assessments (cost to repair at $433,000 and diminution in value at $265,000) as perverse, awarded judgment for the lesser amount of $190,000 (after deducting the settlement amount), and significantly reduced the respondents' costs despite them bettering their settlement offer.
The Court of Appeal allowed the cross-appeal, finding the jury's assessments were not perverse, that damages should be awarded on a cost-to-repair basis at $433,000 without deducting the settlement amount, and that the respondents were entitled to substantial indemnity costs under Rule 49.10.