The applicants sought judgment under the Solicitors Act and the Rules of Civil Procedure for an unpaid legal services invoice arising from a patent-related retainer.
The respondents argued that some work was unnecessary, duplicative, and of unsatisfactory quality.
The court rejected those objections, finding no evidence that the applicants departed from the requested review approach, duplicated work, or provided substandard advice.
Judgment was granted for the invoice amount plus pre-judgment interest, and partial costs were awarded, but not on a substantial indemnity basis.
