The applicants brought preliminary objections to the admissibility of two pieces of evidence in an application proceeding concerning contingent fee recognition.
The respondent law firm and lawyers sought recognition of contingent fees claimed under a Partial Contingency Agreement dated June 17, 2011.
The court ruled on the admissibility of an expert report from a former Federal Court judge and a third affidavit from one of the respondent lawyers.
The court found that expert evidence on the complexity of the case, risks involved, and results achieved was not necessary, as these matters were within the experience and knowledge of the court and were adequately addressed through extensive evidence and comprehensive legal submissions.
The court also found the expert lacked the requisite qualifications to opine on the specific topics.
The court reserved judgment on the admissibility of the third affidavit pending further consideration of its relevance.
