Tobin v. Cox, (2015) 366 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 55 (NLTD(G))

• Judge: Goodridge, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (Canada)
• Case Date: April 24, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (2015), 366 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 55 (NLTD(G))

Tobin v. Cox (2015), 366 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 55 (NLTD(G));

    1144 A.P.R. 55

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. TBEd. AP.038

Bernard Tobin (plaintiff) v. Shirley Cox (defendant)

(201401G1195; 2015 NLTD(G) 53)

Indexed As: Tobin v. Cox

Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court

Trial Division (General)

Goodridge, J.

April 24, 2015.

Summary:

The plaintiff sued the defendant for damages for injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident. Their respective lawyers met for a settlement conference. At issue was whether the plaintiff accepted the defendant's settlement offer of $100,000. The defendant applied to seek specific performance of the agreement. The plaintiff argued that his lawyer lacked the authority to accept the $100,000 offer on his behalf, so there was no binding settlement.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division (General), held that there was a binding and enforceable settlement agreement. The plaintiff's lawyer had the authority to accept the offer, thereby binding the plaintiff to the settlement agreement.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1164

Authority - Extent of - Respecting settlements - The plaintiff sued the defendant for damages for injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident - There plaintiff offered to settle for $127,708.45 - The defendant counter-offered for $75,000 - The plaintiff's and defendant's lawyers attended a settlement conference - The defendant offered $100,000 - The defendant believed the offer had been accepted - When the defendant advised that the settlement funds were received and would be paid upon receipt of the signed settlement agreement, the plaintiff's lawyer advised that the plaintiff was unwilling to settle at that amount - In an action to enforce the settlement agreement, the plaintiff argued that his lawyer had no authority to settle his claim for $100,000 without his approval - The Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division (General), held that there was a valid settlement agreement - The court was satisfied that the plaintiff's lawyer accepted the $100,000 offer at the settlement conference and had the authority to do so - The plaintiff would have bound by a settlement agreement if the defendant had accepted his $127,708.45 offer - Not having authority to accept a $100,000 counter-offer was "inconsistent with the actual authority to settle that [the plaintiff's lawyer] had during the 11 months preceding the ... Settlement Conference" - Further, the plaintiff was advised of the settlement, but waited 25 days to challenge it - The plaintiff's lawyer did not communicate to the defendant's lawyer that there was any limitation on her authority to settle the claim - The plaintiff was bound by the settlement agreement.

Cases Noticed:

Scherer v. Paletta, [1966] 2 O.R. 524; 57 D.L.R.(2d) 532 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].

Counsel:

Daniel M. Boone, Q.C., for the plaintiff;

R. Barry Learmonth, Q.C., for the defendant.

This matter was heard on March 17 and 18, 2015, at St. John's, N.L., before Goodridge, J., of the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division (General), who delivered the following judgment on April 24, 2015.