The disputed tenancy agreement provided: “When legal proceedings are initiated to enforce or interpret the provisions of the tenancy agreement, the litigant has the power, in such an action, to recover the reasonable legal costs it incurred in connection with such an action.” Following a dispute during the trial phase of the case, the court granted an application for sanction from the owner. By imposing the ultimate sanction, the court rejected all of the tenant`s claims, so that only the lessor`s claims remained before the court. Prior to a trial, the owner requested that the court declare that the owner is the “dominant party” so that he could recover his costs. This request was accepted. In order to assist the court or arbitrator in the fair determination of the dominant party, a contractor should consider the development of a law employment tax that at least defines the factors that the court or arbitrator should consider. Here is an example of such a provision: The impact of this judgment and the “dominant part” of legal fees was that the tenant now faces a terrible dilemma. The court had found that the tenant had to pay the lessor the significant costs associated with defending the lessor`s action up to that date. If the tenant came to court, he would have more fees to pay to his own lawyer and would take a significant risk that he would also pay aGG as the landlord`s lawyer. As a result, the tenant tried to negotiate a transaction in which some, but not all, of the landlord`s fees were negotiated.
The dominant party is determined on the basis of an assessment of the party that could have imposed the party`s arguments or positions in the arbitration proceedings or in the courts against the other party`s arguments or positions. This assessment should include the assessment of the following: the amount of the net amount of recovery; The main issues challenged by the parties; Whether the amount of the arbitration award represents a significant percentage of the amount requested by the applicant; and the most recent comparative positions of the parties. As his legal situation was so strong, the owner insisted on the payment of an amount that would fully and a little more cover the rights of the owner. On the eve of the trial, the tenant agreed to pay 100% of the amount claimed by the owner in the subdivision. This result shows how much difference a dominant party can make the rule of legal fees. The party that imposes itself – owner or tenant – recovers its costs, while the other party must pay its own lawyer and the lawyer of its opponent.
Recent Comments