Abel v. Burke, (2000) 138 B.C.A.C. 105 (CA)

• Judge: Rowles, Hall and Mackenzie, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: April 20, 2000
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (2000), 138 B.C.A.C. 105 (CA);2000 BCCA 284

Abel v. Burke (2000), 138 B.C.A.C. 105 (CA);

    226 W.A.C. 105

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] B.C.A.C. TBEd. JN.056

Joseph Abel (plaintiff/respondent) v. Reinhard Burke (defendant/appellant)

(CA026115; 2000 BCCA 284)

Indexed As: Abel v. Burke

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Rowles, Hall and Mackenzie, JJ.A.

May 16, 2000.

Summary:

A client sued his former lawyer for equit­able relief in the form of a declaration that the lawyer repudiated the contract for legal services and was not entitled to charge the client for any legal services provided pursu­ant to the contract.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported in [1999] B.C.T.C. Uned. 345, allowed the action, holding that the lawyer unilaterally breached the contract by withdrawing his services without cause, and was therefore not entitled to any remuner­ation. The lawyer appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the order below and dismissed the client's action.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 3133

Compensation - Agreements - Contingent fees - Invalid agreements - A client and solicitor signed a letter agreement provid­ing for payment of legal services for a contingent fee - Before the retainer was completed, a dispute arose over the terms of the contract - The client's position throughout was that he never agreed to pay a contingent fee on the value of certain "works of accommodation" provided to the client by the party with which the client had the dispute - The solicitor terminated his services - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that there was an unen­forceable agreement, because of the absence of agree­ment by the client to its terms - The solicitor did not repudiate the agreement as there was no concluded agreement to repudiate.

Cases Noticed:

L'Estrange v. Graucob Ltd., [1934] 2 K.B. 394 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 13, 27].

Curtis v. Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co., [1951] 1 K.B. 805 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Delaney v. Cascade River Holidays Ltd. (1983), 44 B.C.L.R. 24 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 13, 27].

Waldock v. Bissett (1992), 13 B.C.A.C. 203; 24 W.A.C. 203; 92 D.L.R.(4th) 532 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Sweet & Maxwell Ltd. v. Universal News Services Ltd., [1964] 2 Q.B. 699 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

North Vancouver (District) v. Progressive Contracting (Langley) Ltd. (1993), 26 B.C.A.C. 74; 44 W.A.C. 74; 78 B.C.L.R.(2d) 356 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Statutes Noticed:

Legal Profession Act, S.B.C. 1987, c. 25, sect. 78(8), sect. 78(9), sect. 78(10) [para. 14].

Counsel:

J.G. Frame, for the appellant;

G. Turriff, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before Rowles, Hall and Mackenzie, JJ.A., of the British Colum­bia Court of Appeal, at Vancouver, British Columbia, on April 20, 2000. The decision of the court was delivered on May 16, 2000, when the following opinions were filed:

Mackenzie, J.A. (Rowles, J.A., concur­ring) - see paragraphs 1 to 23;

Hall, J.A. - see paragraphs 24 to 29.