M. Gottlieb

The appellant law firm appealed a Master's order declining to strike out paragraphs from the respondent's Statement of Defence and Counterclaim, and awarding costs to the self-represented respondent.

The impugned paragraphs alleged abusive conduct by a partner of the firm.

The Superior Court allowed the appeal, finding the Master erred in law by failing to consider whether the paragraphs were relevant to the pleadings regarding a contingency fee agreement.

The court struck the paragraphs as irrelevant and set aside the costs award, allowing the parties to file written submissions on costs.

In complex commercial litigation involving a Mareva injunction motion, counsel attended the court without following the Commercial List’s procedure for requesting an urgent appointment.

The court emphasized that counsel must contact the Commercial List Office before appearing urgently before a judge and may not bypass the process by attending unannounced in an attempt to vary a prior order.

Although the parties agreed to adjourn the Mareva motion and vary certain procedural timelines, the court criticized the improper attendance and ruled that the plaintiffs would not be entitled to claim costs for the unnecessary appearances.

The court granted the adjournment on consent with modifications and provided further scheduling directions for cross-examinations and the motion return.

The interim injunction remained in effect pending the rescheduled hearing.