C. Rawn

Former clients sought to include additional family members as parties in a solicitor’s bill assessment proceeding after the limitation period had expired.

The solicitor moved for a declaration that the additional claimants were barred by the limitation period under the Solicitors Act and the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court held that only one client had requested an assessment within the two‑year limitation period and that the other family members had been advised of the deficiency yet failed to amend the appointment.

No “special circumstances” justified extending the limitation period.

The court granted the solicitor’s motion barring the additional claimants from participating in the assessment proceeding and declined to suspend interest on any overpayment.

The applicant brought a motion seeking to strike the respondent’s pleadings and to vest his one-half interest in the matrimonial home in her, alleging breaches of prior court orders including a non-dissipation order and failure to pay spousal support and costs.

The respondent had sold assets listed in his financial statement to fund the purchase of a property in Florida and withdrew funds from an investment account despite a court order restraining dissipation of assets.

Although the court accepted that the withdrawal of funds from the investment account was used for urgent medical treatment for the parties’ child, it found that the purchase and encumbrance of the Florida property constituted a blatant violation of the prior court order.

The court concluded that striking the pleadings would be disproportionate but that protective relief was required.

The respondent’s interest in the matrimonial home was vested in the applicant pending trial, subject to the trial judge’s ultimate determination.