ABSTRACT
Facts: Mr Parry Husbands QC is the appellant. He is a distinguished man and a former AttorneyGeneral of St Lucia practising in Castries. The respondent, Warefact Limited (the company) is a company incorporated and registered in St Lucia. Its managing director was Mr Lincoln St Rose. It owned a commercial building in Bridge Street, Castries, known as the Voice Building. Mr Husbands had been professionally involved in the purchase of the Voice Building by the company, but had had nothing to do with the sale proposal until Mr St Rose asked him to attend a series of about four meetings held between the company (represented by Mr St Rose and Mr Husbands) and the purchaser (represented by Mr Cornell Charles and Mr Ferrel Charles) to negotiate the sale. Mr Husbands attended both as negotiator and adviser. The meetings culminated in agreement that the purchaser should buy the Voice Building from the company for EC$3,750,000. A deed dated 23 March 1996, intended to dispose of current litigation between the company and a third party concerning the Voice Building, was executed before Mr Husbands acting as a notary. This agreement provided for the deposit to be paid to P.J. Husbands Esquire Clients Account, for the staged payment to the company of sums amounting to EC$700,000 and for payment on completion of the outstanding balance of EC$2,862,500. While the facts are not entirely clear, it appears that in June or July 1996 Mr Husbands orally intimated to Mr St Rose that his fee for his services in this matter would be EC$250,000. This figure represented 6.6% of the sale price. Mr St Rose considered the figure excessive and rejected it, but offered a fee of EC$100,000. This was unacceptable to Mr Husbands, who refused to haggle. In a curt letter dated 23 July 1996 the company terminated Mr Husbands engagement and asked for a statement showing the deposits he had received on the company’s behalf and the disbursements he had made. Instead of complying with this request, as he plainly should have done, Mr Husbands replied that he would give an account when his fees had been paid and not before. On 25 October 1996 the company issued proceedings against Mr Husbands claiming an account of all sums received by him to the account of the company and payment of all sums due to the company, with interest.
