Murphy Oil Co. et al. v. Predator Corp. et al.

• Jurisdiction: Alberta
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Judge: McMahon, J.
• Citation: (2005), 379 A.R. 388 (QB),2005 ABQB 134
• Date: 08 December 2004

Murphy Oil Co. v. Predator Corp. (2005), 379 A.R. 388 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] A.R. TBEd. AP.077

Murphy Oil Canada Ltd., Apache Canada Ltd. and Murphy Canada Exploration Ltd. (plaintiffs) v. The Predator Corporation Ltd., Ricks Nova Scotia Co., and Predator Energies Partnership, Blair Longdo, Robert V. Shields and Gerry O'Reilly (defendants)

The Predator Corporation Ltd., Blair Longdo, Robert V. Shields and Gerry O'Reilly (plaintiffs by counterclaim) v. Murphy Oil Company Ltd., Apache Canada Ltd. and Murphy Canada Exploration Ltd., Harvey Doerr and Floyd Price (defendants by counterclaim)

(0001 19360; 2005 ABQB 134)

Indexed As: Murphy Oil Co. et al. v. Predator Corp. et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

McMahon, J.

March 2, 2005.

Summary:

Defendants by counterclaim applied for summary judgment.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 365 A.R. 326, allowed the application in part. The plaintiffs sought full indemnity costs on the summary judgment motion.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision not reported in this series of reports, awarded costs on a party and party basis.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench determined the quantum of costs.

Practice - Topic 7063

Costs - Party and party costs - Counsel fees - Special or additional counsel - Plaintiffs were awarded party and party costs of a motion for summary judgment on a counterclaim - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "It may very well have been appropriate for the Plaintiffs to hire outside counsel and to rely on in-house counsel. That does not, however, mean that such costs are recoverable. It is quite possible that the work done by those lawyers, was work that is generally intended to be undertaken by the lead law firm hired by the party. If that is the case, then those amounts are already contemplated and included in Schedule C. There may be instances in which such fees may be an allowable disbursement ... However, in those instances great care must be taken in order to ensure that there is no duplication of costs between the tariff and those allowed as disbursements."- See paragraph 43.

Practice - Topic 7063.1

Costs - Party and party costs - Counsel fees - In-house counsel - [See Practice - Topic 7063 ].

Practice - Topic 7065

Costs - Party and party costs - Counsel fees - Lump sum - Plaintiffs were awarded party and party costs of a motion for summary judgment on a counterclaim - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench awarded a lump sum guided by 50% of 6 times column 5 - In arriving at the lump sum award, the court took into account the number of days the plaintiffs' counsel attended discoveries only as observers and excluded costs relating to the contested motions, except the summary judgment application - The court considered that the counterclaim was for an unprecedented amount (initially $6 billion later amended down to $3.6 billion), case management had been proceeding for almost four years and the bulk of the discoveries and other preparation for trial had been completed.

Cases Noticed:

Trizec Equities Ltd. v. Ellis-Don Management Services Ltd. et al. (1999), 251 A.R. 101; 1999 ABQB 801, refd to. [para. 4].

LSI Logic Corp. of Canada Inc. v. Logani et al., [2002] 4 W.W.R. 531; 2001 ABQB 968, refd to. [para. 11].

369413 Alberta Ltd. et al. v. Pocklington, [1999] A.R. Uned. 583; 79 Alta. L.R.(3d) 222 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 13].

Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. et al. v. Prisco et al. (1998), 221 A.R. 44; 1998 ABQB 163, refd to. [para. 13].

Pharand Ski Corp. v. Alberta (1991), 122 A.R. 395 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 26].

Pauli et al. v. Ace INA Insurance Co. et al. (2003), 336 A.R. 85; 2003 ABQB 600, varied (2004), 354 A.R. 348; 329 W.A.C. 348; 2004 ABCA 253, refd to. [para. 36].

Moser v. Derksen (2003), 335 A.R. 204 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 36].

Westline Oilfields Construction Ltd. v. Petromet Resources Ltd. et al. (2002), 324 A.R. 339; 2002 ABQB 934, refd to. [para. 36].

Leadbeater et al. v. DCS Systems Ltd. et al., [2004] A.R. Uned. 594 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 36].

J.S. v. Clement, [1995] O.J. No. 1849 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 38].

Sidorsky et al. v. CFCN Communications Ltd. et al. (1998), 216 A.R. 151; 175 W.A.C. 151 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

Mullen v. Lockhart Motor Sales (Collingwood) Ltd. (1988), 31 C.P.C.(4th) 287 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 43].

Canadian Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Canadian Commercial Bank (1987), 76 A.R. 271 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 43].

Kha v. Salhab et al. (2001), 282 A.R. 324 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 44].

Counsel:

J.J. Marshall, Q.C., and R.F. Smith, for Murphy Oil Company Ltd. and Murphy Canada Exploration Ltd. and Harvey Doerr;

D.J. Cichy and K.R. Anderson, for Apache Canada Ltd. and Floyd Price;

R.A. Coad, Q.C., and J.J. Patterson, for The Predator Corporation Ltd., Blair Longdo, Robert V. Shields and Gerry O'Reilly.

This matter was heard on December 8, 2004, by McMahon, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following decision on March 2, 2005.