3 total
The court adjourned a motion to approve a minor settlement due to insufficient evidence regarding the settlement's reasonableness and procedural deficiencies.
Motion for court approval of settlement of claims on behalf of three minor grandchildren of the deceased in a fatal pedestrian-vehicle collision case.
The plaintiffs sought approval for $10,000 to be paid to the Accountant of the Superior Court for each minor plaintiff, along with approval of a contingency fee retainer agreement and related relief.
The court adjourned the motion due to insufficient evidence regarding the quantum of the settlement, the basis for the settlement amount, and the treatment of legal fees and disbursements.
The court identified multiple procedural deficiencies in the motion record and provided detailed directions for resubmission.
The court permitted the plaintiff to amend pleadings to reflect a Pierrenger Agreement but denied costs.
This motion concerned a personal injury action where the plaintiff entered into a "Pierrenger Agreement" with one defendant (Artistic Landscape Designs Limited), settling the claim against them.
The plaintiff sought to amend the statement of claim to remove the settling defendant and limit the claim against the non-settling defendant (Suzan Fergus) to her direct and several share of liability.
The non-settling defendant initially resisted, seeking clarity on the implications for cross-claims and apportionment of fault.
The court granted the motion to amend the claim and dismiss both cross-claims, clarifying that the trial judge must still apportion fault among all original parties.
The plaintiff's request for costs against the non-settling defendant was denied, as the defendant's initial resistance was deemed reasonable.
Leave to bring summary judgment motion after setting action down for trial denied.
The plaintiff, injured while delivering pizza when interacting with the defendants’ dog, sought leave under Rule 48.04(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to bring a motion for summary judgment on liability and contributory negligence after the action had been set down for trial.
The court held that summary judgment is only available where there is no genuine issue requiring a trial with respect to a claim or defence and that the plaintiff’s request effectively sought to bifurcate liability and damages without the defendants’ consent under Rule 6.1.01.
The court found the proposed motion would not provide a proportionate, more expeditious, or less expensive means to resolve the dispute, particularly given that evidence regarding the incident would need to be revisited at trial on damages.
Leave was therefore refused and the motion dismissed.
Costs were awarded to the defendants on a partial indemnity basis.
