Richard Wells v Godfrey Turnquest

• Jurisdiction: Bahamas
• Judge: Mr. Justice Neil Brathwaite
• Judgment Date: 29 August 2023
• Docket Number: 2016 CLE/gcn/001405
• Court: Supreme Court (Bahamas)

BETWEEN

Richard Wells

Plaintiff

and

Godfrey Turnquest

Defendant

Before The Hon. Mr. Justice Neil Brathwaite

2016 CLE/gcn/001405

COMMONWEALTH OF THE BAHAMAS

IN THE SUPREME COURT

Common Law & Equity Division

Appearances:

Norwood Rolle for the Plaintiff

Regina Bonaby for the Defendant

DECISION

1 By Specially Endorsed Writ of Summons filed 12 ^th October 2016, the Plaintiff seeks the sum of $128,000.00, interest, and costs based on the following claims in the Statement of Claim:

• “1. The Plaintiff is an Attomey-at-Law with Chambers situate at No. 88 Dowdswell Street & Dunmore Lane, formerly situate at No. 9 Dunmore Lane, in the City of Nassau, on the Island of New Providence of the Commonwealth aforesaid.

• 2. By a contract made orally in or about 2006 and made between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, it was agreed that the Plaintiff would commence an action in the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas and do all things necessary to the obtaining of a Certificate of Title (“Certificate”) to several tracts of land; firstly, Three (3) tracts containing 77.14 acres and secondly, Four (4) tracts containing 9.687 acres - both situate in the Settlement of Deadman's Cay in the Island of Long Island.

• 3. It was an express or alternatively an implied term of the Agreement that the Defendant would pay the Plaintiff a reasonable sum for the work.

• 4. Further it was an implied term of the said Agreement that the said sum would be paid within a reasonable time after the completion of the work. The work was completed on or about the 16 May, 2014 but the Defendant, having paid a retainer of $2,000.00, in breach of the Agreement failed and refused and continues to fail and refuse to pay the balance of the sum due in the amount of $128,000.00.

• 5. The Plaintiff, by an Order of the Honourable Madam Justice Claire Hepburn dated the 16 ^th May, 2014, obtained the grant of a Certificate, dated and filed the 23 May 2014, to the Defendant to the two (2) parcels of land referred to at para 2 herein.

  PARTICULARS OF WORK DONE

  To work done of which full particulars were delivered to the Defendant in the Statement of Account dated the 20 ^th May, AD, 2014.”

2 In a defence filed 30 May 2019, the defendant made no admission of any oral contract, but stated the following at paragraph 2: The Defendant admits paragraph 4 of the Statement of Claim insofar that he paid the Plaintiff the requested retainer of $2,000.00 along with disbursements associated with the quieting when requested but denies that he is in breach of an Agreement to pay the Plaintiff the balance of the sum of $128,000.00. The Defendant further states that after paying the retainer, he inquired of the Plaintiff as to the cost of the action to which the Plaintiff failed to disclose, consequently, there were no discussions regarding any possible costs and therefore no sums arc due and owing.

3 On the date set for trial of this matter, counsel for both parties accepted that there was no issue with respect to liability, and agreed that the court should determine the issue of quantum alone. Directions were then given, and the matter adjourned to 15 ^th December 2021, and thence to 17 ^th January 2022.

THE PLAINTIFF'S CASE

4 The Plaintiff is an Attorney-at-law, and was requested by the Defendant to provide legal services, which resulted in the commencement and conduct of Quieting Action—CLE/qui/01274 of 2007, which resulted in the obtaining of a Certificate of Title to several tracts of land, namely three (3) tracts containing 77.714 acres and secondly, four (4) tracts containing 9.687 acres, all in the Settlement of Deadman's Cay, Long Island.

5 The Plaintiff accepts that no written and signed retainer agreement existed between the parties, but submits that legal services were provided to the Defendant in the Quieting Action, at the end of which the Certificate of Title was obtained, and a statement of account was submitted in the amount of One Hundred Thousand ($100,000.00) dollars, which the Defendant refused to pay.

6 The Plaintiff suggests that the charges are based on the scale charges for Court work recommended by the Bahamas Bar Association, and rely in particular on page 2 which states as follows:

“Charging on the basis of expenditure of time only is an attraction which must be sternly resisted in cases where one or more of the factors set out below is or are present. In such circumstances the counsel and attorney is entitled to charge a premium not exceeding Two Hundred Percentum 200% of the aforementioned rates. The factors are as follows:

The complexity of the item or of the cause or matter in which it arises or the difficulty or novelty of the questions involved;

The skill specialized knowledge and relationship and responsibility required of and the time and labor expended by the Counsel or Attorney; The number and importance of the documents however brief prepared or perused;

The place where and circumstances in which the business involved or any part thereof is transacted;

Where money or property is involved, its amount or value;

The importance of the cause or matter to the client;

The urgency of the cause or matter and its impact upon the practitioner's ability to undertake other work.”

7 Appendix II (page 8) item A reads as follows:

On a percentum or lump sum basis:

“In those cases where there is a liquidated demand or where the subject matter of the claim is ascertainable and can be calculated by reference to a numerical formula, (eg land, personal property, shares in a company, settlement of claims, etc) as follows:

Up to $100,000.00………….. 10% of the amount claimed in the discretion of the attorney.

In excess of $100,000.00…….. 5% of the additional amount claim over and above $100,000.00 in the discretion of the attorney

The above fees are cumulative

8 The Plaintiff calculates that the total size of the property in question amounts to 89.419 Acres, and has calculated the charges based on valuation certificates from the Department of Inland Revenue in relation to other property on Long Island. Based on those calculations, the Plaintiff extrapolates the price per square foot of those properties, then provides a calculation of the acreage price based on that square foot price, and estimates that the first property, which comprises 10,999 square feet, is valued at $84,000.00 per acre, the second is valued at $103,361.96 per acre, the third at $90,529.25 per acre, and the fourth at $44,971.38 per acre. The Plaintiff then derives an average price per acre of $81,715.64, which is then multiplied by the total acreage of the land in question to derive a value of $7,306,930.81.

9 The Plaintiff also refers to an appraisal report from the Defendant, which is included in the Bundle of Documents. In that report, the property is valued at $12,000.00 per acre, for a total value of $1,150,256.00.

10 The Plaintiff therefore calculates that, on the...