British Columbia, Canada
The following excerpt is from Maras v. Seemore Entertainment Ltd., 2014 BCSC 1842 (CanLII):
As was the case in Burnett v. Moir, this case certainly profited at trial from the use of two counsel for the plaintiff as well as for the defendants. But that is not to say that the defendants should be responsible for the costs of two counsel for both preparation and attendance at trial.
When I consider what occurred in Wallman v. Doe, Burnett v. Moir, and my own involvement in this case as a result of judicial case management, I conclude that the plaintiff should receive his costs for preparation and attendance at trial based on one and one-half counsel, but not two.
There are no other similar questions at this time.