The respondent brought motions seeking to dismiss an order permitting the assessment of a law firm's accounts, arguing there was no evidence of a retainer and that the assessment process was unavailable because some work involved a patent agent.
The court held the respondent failed to establish that no retainer existed and found the documentary evidence ambiguous without supporting evidence from the respondent’s principal.
The court further held that services performed by a patent agent under the supervision of a law firm may fall within assessable legal services.
The applicant’s motion to amend the respondent’s name in the order due to misnomer was granted.
The respondent’s motions were dismissed.