Judge orders Bignall Law to pay costs for ‘abusing’ court process

Bignall Law has been ordered by the Supreme Court to pay a wasted cost award of $356,500 by July 29 to a woman who was sued twice in relation to a motor vehicle incident in which the firm’s client was injured.

The law firm, which was acting on behalf of claimant Sean Scott, had filed identical claims in 2013 and in 2019 against Meva Brown, the first defendant.

Brown was seeking $547,975, but the figure was lowered after the judge reduced the hourly rate being charged by her lawyer, Suzette Campbell – from $45,000 to $40,000 – noting that she was not yet at the level that would attract that rate.

Brown’s husband, Waynette, with whom she jointly owned the motor vehicle involved in the accident, as well as driver Daniel Allen were named as the second and third defendants on the claims.

Scott was contending in the personal injury claim that he was a passenger in the Browns’ motor vehicle on June 8, 2013, when he was injured during a collision that he is claiming occurred as a result of Allen’s negligence.

But Justice Tania Tulloch-Reid struck out the latter claim in January and last month ordered the firm to pay the waste cost.

“The law is clear that identical claims concerning the same parties, incident, cause of action and remedy sought cannot be running at the same time. ... To have both claims running at the same time is not just an abuse of the court’s process and a waste of the court’s time and resources, but also prejudicial to Ms Brown, who will be required to defend both claims,” the judge said in her recently published judgment.

The judge further noted that her reasons for dismissing the claim were that there was no evidence that Mr Brown and Allen had been served, and, further, that the claim form could not be served again as it had expired.

Also given that the order for extension was refused, the judge said the two defendants should have been removed from the claim.

The judge also noted that Scott’s lawyer, Lance Lamey, had not convinced him that the actions of the firm in having identical claims were in the interest of the claimant and were not prejudicial to Mrs Brown, in particular.

She also noted that no steps were taken by the firm to discontinue any of the claims even when the issue of the identical claims was brought to its attention.

“The legal decisions are made by counsel, and those are made based on their understanding of the law. When unreasonable and improper legal decisions are made, the attorney should bear the costs,” she said in relation to the wasted cost.

Mrs Brown was served with documents for the 2019 suit on February 11 of that year and filed an acknowledgement of service on March 7, although it should have been done by February 25. The server, in his affidavit, however, said that he could not locate Mrs Brown’s husband or the third defendant.

The claimant’s lawyer had not only unsuccessfully sought a default judgment against the defendants for failing to file an acknowledgement of service but also made an application to extend the validity of the claim form.

Justice Tulloch Reid, in the meantime, has ordered Bignall Law to notify the registrar by filing a notice of intention to proceed in respect to the first claim once the money has been paid to Mrs Brown’s lawyer.

That notice should also be served on Mrs Brown, and the registrar is to schedule a date for case management.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com