Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court
  • About Us
    • Court Overview
    • Meet the Chief Justice
    • Past Chief Justices
      • Sir Hugh Rawlins
      • Sir Brian George Keith Alleyne
      • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Adrian Saunders
      • Hon. Sir Charles Michael Dennis Byron
      • Rt. Hon. Sir Vincent Floissac
      • Honourable Sir Lascelles Lister Robotham
      • More..
        • Hon. Neville Algernon Berridge
        • Sir Neville Peterkin
        • Sir Maurice Herbert Davis
        • Justice P. Cecil Lewis
        • Sir Allen Montgomery Lewis
    • Judicial Officers
      • Justices of Appeal
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Davidson Kelvin Baptiste
        • Her Ladyship, the Hon. Justice Louise Esther Blenman
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Mario Michel
        • Her Ladyship, the Hon. Justice Gertel Thom
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Paul Anthony Webster [Ag.]
      • High Court Judges
      • Masters
    • Court of Appeal Registry
    • Career Opportunities
    • Legal Internship
    • Court Connected Mediation
      • Court-Connected Mediation Practice Direction Forms
      • Mediation Publications
    • Directory
  • Judgments
    • Privy Council
    • Caribbean Court of Justice
    • Court Of Appeal Judgments
    • High Court Judgments
    • Digests of Decisions
    • Country
      • Anguilla
      • Antigua & Barbuda
      • Grenada
      • Montserrat
      • Saint Kitts and Nevis
      • Saint lucia
      • Saint Vincent & The Grenadines
      • Territory of the Virgin Islands
    • Year
      • 1972 – 1990
        • 1972
        • 1973
        • 1975
        • 1987
        • 1989
        • 1990
      • 1991 – 2000
        • 1991
        • 1992
        • 1993
        • 1994
        • 1995
        • 1996
        • 1997
        • 1998
        • 1999
        • 2000
      • 2001 – 2010
        • 2001
        • 2002
        • 2003
        • 2004
        • 2005
        • 2006
        • 2007
        • 2008
        • 2009
        • 2010
      • 2011 – 2019
        • 2011
        • 2012
        • 2013
        • 2014
        • 2015
        • 2016
        • 2017
        • 2018
        • 2019
    • Judgment Focus
  • Sittings & Notices
    • Schedule of Sittings
    • Court of Appeal Sittings
    • Chamber Hearing (Appeals)
    • Case Management (Appeals)
    • High Court Sittings
    • Status Hearings
    • Special Sittings
    • Notices
  • Court Procedures & Rules
    • Civil Procedure Rules [WEB]
    • ECSC (Sittings of the Court) Rules, 2014
    • ECSC Civil Procedure Rules
      • Civil Procedure Rules 2000 [Amendments to Nov 2015]
      • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2014
      • ECSC Civil Procedure (Amendment) (No.2) Rules
      • Civil Procedure Rules 2000 [Amendments to May 2014]
      • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2013
      • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2011
    • ECSC Criminal Procedure Rules
      • Criminal Procedure Rules SI No. 22 of 2015
    • ECSC Sentencing Guidelines
    • Non-Contentious Probate & Administration of Estates Rules
    • Court of Appeal Rules
    • More..
      • Election Petition Rules
      • Legal Profession Disciplinary Procedure Rules (St. Lucia)
      • Code Of Judicial Conduct
      • Court Forms
        • Introduction of E-Filing
        • BVI Commercial Division E-Filing
        • Court-Connected Mediation Practice Direction Forms
      • SILK Application Procedure
      • Practice Directions
      • Practice Notes
  • News & Publications
    • ECSC Media Gallery
    • Annual Reports
    • Appeals Reports
    • Appointments
    • Press Releases
    • Papers & Presentation
      • Opening of the Law Year Addresses
    • Tributes
  • E-Litigation
    • E-Litigation Portal
    • E-Litigation Instructional Videos
    • ECSC E-Litigation Portal User Information
    • Electronic Litigation Filing and Service Procedure Rules
    • Notices of Commencement
    • E-Litigation Publications
  • J.E.I
    • Structure of JEI
    • JEI Chairman
    • Mandate, Objectives, Standards
    • JEI Programme
      • Conferences
      • Programmes & Projects
      • Symposiums
      • Training
      • Workshops
    • Upcoming Activities
more
    • About Us
    • Meet the Chief Justice
    • Civil Procedure Rules
    • Mediation
    • Careers
  • Contact
  • Saved for Later
 Home  E-Litigation Portal
  •  Court Procedures And Rules
    • Civil Procedure Rules
    • Court Forms
    • Election Petition Rules
    • Practice Directions
  •  Judgments
    •  All
    •  Court of Appeal
    •  High Court
    •  Digest of Decisions
  •  Sittings
    •  All
    •  Court of Appeal
    •  High Court
  • Sign In
    
    Minimize Search Window
    •       {{item.title}} Filter By Category {{SelectedFilters.length}}x Categories 
    •       {{item.title}} {{selectedCountries.length}}x Countries Country 
    •       {{item.title}} Filter By Year {{selectedOptions.length}}x Options 
    
    Sorry can't find what you're looking for try adjusting your search terms
    Appeal
    {{doc._source.post_title}}
    Page {{indexVM.page}} of {{indexVM.pageCount}}
    pdf
    Home » Judgments » High Court Judgments » Dorset Charles v Reynold C. Benjamin

    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GRENADA

    AND THE WEST INDIES ASSOCIATED STATES

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

    (CIVIL)

     

    GRENADA

    CLAIM NO. GDAHCV 2008/0110

    BETWEEN:

     

    DORSET CHARLES

    Trading as World Wide Watersports

    Claimant

    AND

    Reynold C. Benjamin

    Trading as R.C Benjamin & CO

    Defendant

    Before:

    The Hon. Mde Justice Agnes Actie

     

    Appearances:-

    Claimant in person

    Defendant in person

    ————————————————-

    2020: August 16th

    ————————————————-

     

    JUDGMENT

    [1] ACTIE J: This claim is of some vintage and the parties
    are both litigants in person. It is the evidence that on 25th
    April 1996, the claimant, Dorsett Charles engaged the defendant,’ Reynold
    Benjamin of the law firm R. C Benjamin& Co to represent him in a court
    claim number 477/1996 against the Government of Grenada to recover damages
    for the demolition of his premises and equipment.

    ‘

    [2] In 1997, Alleyne J gave judgment in favor of Mr. Charles and on appeal
    in 1998, the Court of Appeal ordered by consent that judgment be entered in
    favor of Mr. Charles in the sum of $1,661,340,00 with costs in the sum of
    $15,000.00.

    [3] It is Mr. Charles’s evidence that to date he has not realized the
    fruits of his judgment from the Court of Appeal. However, it is the
    evidence and accepted by Mr. Benjamin that the Government paid the firm of
    R.C Benjamin & Co the sum of $100,000.00 under the judgment debt.

    [4] Mr. Charles filed a statement of claim on 25th February 2008
    and an amended claim on the 17th November 2008 against Reynold
    C. Benjamin, Trading as R.C Benjamin & Co for the sum of $100,000.00
    less $9000.00 for the legal fees owed to the defendant. Mr. Charles
    presented a receipt dated 25th April 1996 representing legal
    fees for the sum of $10,000.00 with a deposit payment of $1000.00 and a
    balance of $9000.00.

    [5] Mr. Benjamin in his defence and counter claim filed on December 4,2008
    states that he represented Mr. Charles at the trial in the High Court and
    even before the trial on an interlocutory application for an injunction.
    Mr. Benjamin states that he obtained judgment in favor of Mr. Charles at
    the first instance and on appeal. Mr Benjamin states that he represented
    Mr. Charles on the appeal on the agreement that he would be paid a
    contingency fee of 20% of the damages recovered on behalf of Mr. Charles.
    Mr. Benjamin states that he is entitled to the sum of $320,000.00 on the
    monetary judgment plus 20% of the money value of the 10,000.00 square feet
    of land under the judgment. Mr. Benjamin conceded receiving the sum of
    $100,000.00 from the government and counterclaims for the remaining sum of
    $220,000,00 plus interest under the contingency fee arrangement.

    [6] Mr. Benjamin at trial states that he had discussions with Mr. Charles
    about his inability to satisfy fees in the High Court claim in 1996. Mr.
    Benjamin outlines the various stages in the litigation including an
    application for an injunction followed by representation at the Court of
    Appeal for which he said would have increased the $10,000.00 previously
    agreed.

    [7] Both in his evidence and at the trial, Mr. Benjamin intimated that the
    contingency fee agreement was initially made orally and was subsequently
    endorsed in writing and signed by Mr. Charles on the back of the Court of
    Appeal consent order. Mr. Benjamin states that the said order was lost
    during hurricane Ivan.

    .

    [8] Mr. Charles admits that he is indebted to Mr. Benjamin in the sum of
    $9000.00. Initially he said that he did not have discussions or made any
    arrangement for the additional fees. In cross-examination, Mr. Charles
    states that he remembered the mention of 20% but he vacillated when asked
    about the signing/ endorsement on the Court of Appeal order.

    [9] Having heard the evidence, I accept Mr. Benjamin’s evidence that the
    receipt dated 25th April 1996 for legal fees of $10,000.00 was
    in relation to the High Court claim. The parties could not have
    contemplated an appeal in 1996 when the claim was filed and in any event
    the retainer would have expired at the completion of the trial at the High
    Court level. Any representation on appeal would have been on a new retainer
    arrangement.

    [10] The only issue for determination is whether there was a contingency
    fee arrangement and if so whether the said arrangement is enforceable. As
    was indicated earlier, there is no evidence of such signed agreement.

    [11] Having reviewed the evidence and heard the parties, I do not accept
    Mr. Benjamin’s evidence that such an arrangement was endorsed on the court
    of appeal. It is incongruous that an Attorney-at-Law would have made such
    an informal arrangement in light of the fact the same client had failed to
    complete payment on the High Court fees. Any such arrangement in my view
    should have been expressed in writing in advance of the appeal. This would
    have given the client an opportunity to solicit independent advice or
    engage other counsel if necessary. This is the expected standard practice
    in keeping with the professional practice and etiquette of an Attorney- at-
    Law.

    [12] Secondly, even if there was a contingency fee arrangement, there is a
    long established common law rule of professional conduct against
    contingency fees that forbids a solicitor from accepting payment for
    professional services on behalf of a claimant calculated as a proportion of
    the sum recovered from a defendant.

    [13] A contingency fee, that is, an arrangement under which the legal
    advisers of a litigant shall be remunerated only in the event of the
    litigant succeeding in recovering money or other property in the action,
    has always been regarded as illegal under English law on the ground that it
    involves maintenance of the action by the legal adviser. Moreover, where,
    as is usual in such a case, the remuneration which the adviser is to
    receive is to be, or to be measured by, a proportion of the fund or of the
    value of the property recovered, the arrangement may fall within that
    particular class of maintenance called champerty

    [1]

    .

    [14]
    In Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2)

    [2]

    Lord Denning, then Master of the Rolls said,

    ‘It may be worthwhile to indicate briefly the nature of the public policy
    question. It can, I think, be summarised in two statements; first in
    litigation a professional lawyer’s role is to advise his client with a
    clear eye and an unbiased judgment; secondly, a solicitor retained to
    conduct litigation is not merely the agent and adviser to his client, but
    also an officer of the court, with a duty to the court to ensure that his
    client’s case which he must of course present and conduct with the utmost
    of care of his client’s interests, is also presented and conducted with
    scrupulous fairness and integrity. A barrister has similar obligations. A
    legal adviser who acquires a personal financial interest in the outcome of
    the litigation may obviously find himself in a situation in which that
    interest conflicts with those obligations.’

    [15] Lord Denning MR also stated in Trendtex Trading Corp v Credit Suisse

    [3]

    “when the maintainer seeks to make a profit out of another man’s action by
    taking the proceeds of it, or a part of them, for himself. Modern public
    policy condemns champerty in a lawyer whenever he seeks to recover not only
    his proper costs but also a portion of the damages for himself,

    or when he conducts a case on the basis that he is to be paid if he
    wins but not if he loses.”

    [16] The English Court of Appeal in a more recent decision in

    Morris v Southwark London Borough Council

    [4]


    held that:

    “where the allegedly champertous agreement was entered into with a person
    who was conducting the litigation or providing advocacy services, the
    common law of champerty remained substantially unchanged as it was a clear
    requirement of public policy that officers of the court should be inhibited
    from putting themselves in a position where their own interests could
    conflict with their duties to the court;

    [17] Applying the authorities to the facts, firstly I do not accept Mr.
    Benjamin’s evidence that the agreement for payment of fees was endorsed on
    the Court of Appeal order and even if it was, is unenforceable. Mr.
    Benjamin as an Attorney-at-Law should have been well aware of the
    unenforceability of a contingency fee agreement. The law against
    contingency fees and champerty has its origins as a principle of public
    policy designed to protect the purity of justice and the interests of
    vulnerable litigants.

    [18] I agree with Mr. Benjamin however that he is entitled to costs for
    representing Mr. Charles at the Court of Appeal. Mr. Benjamin’s recourse at
    the time was to have applied to the court to have his costs taxed, which
    was the procedure prior to CPR 2000 when a client challenged costs. Until
    then Mr. Benjamin had no call on the monies due to Mr. Charles under the
    judgment. In the circumstances, Mr. Benjamin is to reimburse Mr. Charles
    the money received from the Government on his behalf.

    [19] It is unfortunate that this matter is only now being determined in an
    excess of a decade since the filing of the claim in 2008. The new
    dispensation under the CPR 2000 requires an application for an assessment
    of reasonable costs taking into consideration the provisions of CPR 65.3.

     

    ORDER

    [20] In summary and for the foregoing reasons, it is ordered as follows

    (i) Judgment is entered in favor of Mr. Dorsette Charles on the claim in
    the sum of $91,000.00 with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of
    filing the claim until payment in full with Prescribed Costs in the sum of
    $13,650.00.

    (ii) The counter claim filed by Mr. Reynold Benjamin for the sum of
    $220,000.00 stands dismissed with Prescribed Costs to Mr. Dorsette Charles
    in the sum of $30,000.00.

    Postscript

    [21] Mr. Dorsett Charles states that he has not received any compensation
    from the Government of Grenada under the consent order for the sum of
    $1,661,340,00 with costs of $15,000.00 made by the Court of Appeal in 1998.
    The issue was not before the court for determination. It is for Mr. Charles
    to make his enquires at the appropriate government department.

    Agnes Actie

    High Court Judge

    By the Court

    Registrar




    [1]

    Bukley L J in Wallersteiner v Moir (NO 2) 1975 QB373:


    [2]

    [1975] QB 373, at page 402


    [3]

    [1980] 3 All ER 721 at 741


    [4]

    [2011] 2 All ER 240

    /dorset-charles-v-reynold-c-benjamin/
     Prev
    Status Hearing – 6th October 2020
    Next 
    Grenada Distillers Limited v Keith Newton
    Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court

    2nd Floor Heraldine Rock Building
    Waterfront
    P.O. Box 1093
    Castries
    Saint Lucia
    T: +1 758 457 3600
    E: offices@eccourts.org

    • About Us
      • Court Overview
      • Career Opportunities
      • Directory
      • Privacy Policy
    • Judgments
      • Court Of Appeal
      • High Court
    • Sittings
      • Chamber Hearing
      • Court of Appeal
      • High Court
    • News & Updates
      • Appointments
      • Press Releases
    • Civil Procedure Rules
      • Court Forms
      • Practice Directions
    © 2021 Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court. All Rights Reserved

    Submit your email address and name to subscribe for email notifcations.

    [email-subscribers-advanced-form id="1"]
    Bookmark
    Remove Item
    Sign in to continue
    or

    Bookmarked Items
    •  Home
    • Judgments
    • Sittings
    •  News
    •  more