Claudio Aiello

The client obtained an Order for Assessment of his former solicitor's unpaid accounts but later brought a motion to amend the Order to remove the unpaid accounts, claiming he had not retained the solicitor for those matters.

The solicitor brought a cross-motion to add the client's corporations to the assessment.

The court dismissed the client's motion, finding the belated dispute of the retainer was a subterfuge to delay payment.

The court granted the solicitor's cross-motion to add the corporations, as the client was their directing mind and their exclusion was an oversight.

The defendant brought a motion to cap the monetary scope of an uncapped Mareva injunction that had frozen all of the defendants’ assets in relation to a fraud claim valued at approximately $824,000.

The plaintiff argued the injunction should remain uncapped due to evidence of a broader alleged fraudulent scheme and the possibility of additional victims asserting claims.

The court held that absent other commenced claims, it was unfair to restrain assets far exceeding the plaintiff’s claim.

The Mareva injunction was therefore capped at $1.6 million, reflecting the compensatory claim plus anticipated investigative and legal costs, and limited primarily to real estate assets.

The defendant’s request to examine the plaintiff’s senior counsel regarding the origin of investigative evidence was denied as speculative and unnecessary.