The last court hearing
MTCC No. 943 v.
Khan
Court File No: CV-12-9565
Date: 04 June 2013
When MTCC # 943 realized that they were victims of fraud, the
corporation sued Manzoor Khan, Channel Property Management and all
parties that may have been involved.
By the spring of 2013, all the parties settled except for two
defendents.
Mihaela Jurkovic and Mohammad Irfan Naeem, were both former employees
of Channel who was the property management company at MTCC No. 943.
(Mr. Naeem was the property manager.)
When MTCC No. 943 advised that it wished to discontinue its action
against them, both sought their costs. A settlement was reached with
Jurkovic in which she was paid costs of $6,500.00.
In the beginning, Mr. Naeem’s lawyer claimed about $9,000 in costs.
Then, a week before the court hearing, Naeem’s counsel issued a new
invoice which billed his client $41,505.88 in fees, together with
$160.25 in disbursements. That figure was then dropped to $35,000.
The condo suggested $6,500, the same as what they paid Mihaela Jurkovic.
In court Justice Brown asked:
"How, then, does Naeem arrive at a claim of some $51,000 or $35,000? On
May 23, 2013, a week before the hearing of this motion, Naeem’s counsel
issued Invoice No. 4266 which billed his client $41,505.88 in fees,
together with $160.25 in disbursements. No evidence was filed to
explain three groups of work which, according to the time and
disbursements ledger, constituted the work included on Invoice No.
4266."
Justice Brown then gives a detailed reasoning on why he refuses to
accept any of the costs listed in Invoice # 4266. He then goes on to
say:
"That then leaves for consideration the approximately $9,000.00 billed
or docketed for work performed up to the filing of the last pleading.
In the circumstances of this case, where all parties except Mr. Khan
were victims and the plaintiff had a bona fide basis to assert a claim
against Mr. Naeem, any allowance of costs of discontinuance should be
on a partial indemnity scale, or approximately $5,000.00, all in.
Although I am strongly tempted not to award any costs given the
extravagant cost over-reach revealed in the recent docket entries on
counsel’s ledger placed before me, I suspect that such an approach did
not result from any instructions from the client.
Consequently, I grant the plaintiff leave to discontinue this action
against Mr. Naeem upon the payment to him of costs in the amount of
$5,000.00,
all in."
Wow! It appears that the judge thought that the defence lawyer was
trying to soak the condominium for greatly inflated legal fees and so
Mr. Naeem came close to getting nothing.
top contents
chapter previous next