The issue of whether or not enforcing a settlement would be unjust or unreasonable was also considered in Katen v. Katen, 2005 BCSC 495 (“Katen”). There the court found that an unconditional settlement was reached between the parties and the only outstanding step was to perfect the agreement by way of a consent dismissal order. Although satisfied that the settlement reached was within the apparent authority of the plaintiff’s counsel, the court found there was a triable issue on the question of whether he misapprehended the authority he had to settle. Mr. Justice Barrow went on to consider whether to refuse to exercise his discretion to stay the proceedings. In his view, the weight of the authorities was to the effect that the court should not exercise its discretion under s. 8 of the Law and Equity Act to grant a stay of proceedings, where to do so would involve upholding a settlement agreement entered into under a misapprehension on the part of the a solicitor as to his actual authority.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.