Pitchuck v. Tricon Global Restaurants (Canada) Inc. et al., 2004 NSSC 224

• Judge: Goodfellow, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: November 02, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: 2004 NSSC 224;(2004), 227 N.S.R.(2d) 340 (SC)

Pitchuck v. Tricon Global Restaurants (2004), 227 N.S.R.(2d) 340 (SC);

 720 A.P.R. 340

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. NO.007

Joseph Pitchuck, a minor, by his Litigations Guardian, Richard Pitchuck and Wendy Pitchuck (plaintiffs) v. Tricon Global Restaurants (Canada) Inc., a body corporate, KFCC/Pepsico Holding Ltd., a body corporate (defendants)

(S.H. 147432; 2004 NSSC 224)

Indexed As: Pitchuck v. Tricon Global Restaurants (Canada) Inc. et al.

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

Goodfellow, J.

November 2, 2004.

Summary:

Joseph Pitchuck suffered a brain injury in a fall while a minor. He was declared incompetent and his father, Richard Pitchuck, was appointed the guardian of the estate and person of his son. An application was brought for the approval of the settlement entered into on Joseph Pitchuck's behalf.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court allowed the application.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 3130

Compensation - Agreements - Contingent fees - Review and approval - A contingency agreement provided that the contingency fee applied to the net recovery - The net recovery was after deduction of disbursements and an amount designated for party and party costs - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court stated that "The contingency fee agreement in this application is clear; however, I want to indicate that even if it had provided that it was to apply to a gross amount and perhaps even further - that the party and party costs would be in addition to the contingency fee percentage, I would have in all probability held to the contrary." - See paragraph 15.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 3135

Compensation - Agreements - Contingent fees - Calculation of (incl. multiplier) - [See Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 3130 ].

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 3137

Compensation - Agreements - Contingent fees - Duty to client - Paragraph 10 of a contingency fee agreement provided that "The clients are responsible to pay any costs awarded against the clients." - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court stated that "I would go so far as to recommend that contingency fee agreements set out the equivalent of para. 10 herein in capital letters. The court, on occasion, senses very strongly that the client either does not know or does not comprehend the client's exposure to costs in the event that the action is unsuccessful." - See paragraph 17.

Cases Noticed:

Harnish v. Perry Rand Ltd. et al. (1994), 134 N.S.R.(2d) 145; 383 A.P.R. 145 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 14].

Counsel:

Tammy Manning, for the plaintiffs;

David Miller, Q.C., for the defendants.

This application was heard in Chambers, at Halifax, Nova Scotia, by Goodfellow, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, on November 2, 2004. Goodfellow, J., delivered the following oral decision on the same date, which was released in writing on November 8, 2004.