Background:

• The respondents sought to remove Paul Kasanda from a legal assessment, arguing KMH Lawyers and Miriam Vale Peters only represented L3 Prime Inc., not Paul.
• The court, not an assessment officer, had to decide if a retainer agreement existed.

Key Points:

• The respondents claimed Paul did not directly engage the lawyers; they represented his company in an estate dispute.
• Evidence suggested Paul's involvement in communications and decisions, indicating a potential solicitor-client relationship.
• The court reviewed factors such as correspondence, meetings, and billing to determine if such a relationship existed.

Decision:

• The judge found sufficient evidence to reasonably believe KMH Lawyers were acting for Paul, despite no signed retainer agreement.
• The motion to remove Paul from the assessment was dismissed.

Conclusion: The court concluded that indicators of a lawyer-client relationship between Paul and KMH Lawyers were sufficient to continue the assessment involving Paul.

Successful Party:

• KMH Lawyers and Miriam Vale Peters succeeded. The court dismissed the motion by Paul, Elke Kasanda, and L3 Prime Inc., siding with the applicants on the solicitor-client relationship issue.

Monetary Award/Costs/Damages:

• No new monetary award or costs were granted in this decision. However, in a related estate matter, Elke Kasanda was previously ordered to pay $74,287.59 against her personally. The current decision does not include additional costs or damages.