Clarks et Al v Tucker; Clarks et Al v Tucker

• Jurisdiction: Barbados
• Judge: Archer, J.,Wylie, J.,Jackson J.
• Judgment Date: 23 October 1961
• Neutral Citation: BB 1961 HC 25
• Date: 23 October 1961
• Court: High Court (Barbados)

Supreme Court

Archer, J.; Wylie, J.; Jackson J.

Clarks et al

and

Tucker

Clarks et al

and

Tucker

Mr. W.H.A. Hanschell instructed by Messrs R.S. Nicholls & Co. Ltd. for the appellants.

Mr. J.D.B. Dear instructed by Messrs. Cottle Catford & Co. for the respondent.

Contract - Fee for services — Presumption that person requesting professional services impliedly will pay reasonable fee — Whether presumption rebutted.

Facts: The appellants, Clarke and Tucker, were partners in a firm of building contractors and Tucker supervised the construction of a house for the respondent, his brother. There was nothing said about a fee for supervision but after the house had been completed and as a result of a quarrel between the brothers, the appellant sent the respondent a bill for supervision. The respondent refused to pay. The appellants sued for the fee and the learned trial judge did not feel that he should imply an intention of charging a fee as being within reasonable contemplation of the parties. On appeal,

Held: The presumption that a reasonable fee would be paid for the professional services rendered to the respondent had been rebutted and the appeal will be dismissed.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:

1 In this appeal, the only matter in dispute is the claim of the appellants against the respondent for $1,000 as a fee for supervising the erection of a house for the respondent. In the court below, FIELD, J., gave judgment in favour of the respondent on this claim. It was common ground that no specific fee had been agreed to at the time the arrangement to do this work was made. Indeed, the evidence on both sides was to the effect that the question of a fee was not raised. The appellant P.A.K. Tucker who made the arrangement with the respondent, said in evidence:

“He [that is the respondent] did not ask if we would charge [a] fee nor did I tell him we would charge a fee.”

2 The appellants' claim was, however, based on the presumption that, when a person requests professional services, it is implied that he will pay a reasonable fee for those services even though no fee is mentioned between the parties. There is such a presumption in the absence of circumstances which would rebut it and the trial judge expressly took his presumption into account in the following passage in his judgment:

“In ordinary circumstances when A calls in a firm of building contractors and discusses the building of a house and plans are drawn of the house and a house constructed accordingly, without mention of a fee for supervision, the reasonable and proper inference is that the contractors will expect to be paid and the other party will pay for their services. In such circumstances a court would imply an undertaking on the part of the person for whom the work is done to pay reasonable remuneration if none was stated”

3 Earlier in his judgment the evidence had been reviewed and the passage which I have just read is then followed by these observations:

“But there are peculiar circumstances in this case and apart from what I have said earlier, it would seem unreasonable for a person who could get his house built free of the cost of a supervision fee to expect that he would be required to pay his brother. Moreover the story of the defendant seems the more...