Another name for a Pierrenger agreement is a British Columbia ferry agreement. The only difference between the two is the cases from which they derive their names – Pierringer v. Hoger and British Columbia Ferry Corp. and. al.c. T&N plc And. Al. Essentially, it is the same type of agreement. Specifically, in these types of agreements, a plaintiff agrees with certain defendants and maintains its claim against non-billable defendants for the total damage resulting from the collective fault of the non-billing defendant. Over the years, there has been disagreement as to whether a Pierrenger agreement would extinguish the joint and several liability of defendants who are not entitled to a place of business. This decision appears to close the door to the argument that liability is distinct between other defendants who do not charge when the parties to the resolution enter into an agreement with BC Ferries, unless there are unusual circumstances that give the parties who do not charge the benefit of that agreement. This should give the parties food for thought if they know that other parties are considering agreements with BC Ferries – especially if there are poor parties who remain in the action.

While a party that does not invoice is not responsible for paying the portion of the loss that is ultimately attributable to the settlement parties, it may be liable for paying the lion`s share of a price if the other parties that do not charge are able to pay. The court concluded that the plaintiff can claim from any of the unsolved defendants on a joint and several basis and assert claims for contributions and compensation between them. A British Columbia ferry contract extinguishes the joint liability between the parties to the billing as a group and the defendants not entitled to an establishment as a group. The court noted that this was mentioned in the relevant sentence of the settlement agreements, which provides that the plaintiff limits his claim “to the different levels of responsibility of the remaining defendant.” Moreover, irrespective of the correct interpretation of that sentence, Greyback has not demonstrated that it can rely on the settlement agreements. The fundamental exception to privacy allows a person who is not a party to the contract to avail himself of an advantage granted to him where the contracting parties intending to grant an advantage to that person and the activities he carries out fall within the scope of the treaty. The court found no indication that the plaintiff and the settlement defendants intended to grant a benefit to Greyback or to the defendants who were not entitled to a place of business. Most parties to an ongoing dispute want to reach an agreement before the trial. To reach a successful agreement, the development of a binding and reliable settlement agreement is of paramount importance. The plaintiff entered into two BC Ferries settlement agreements with some of the defendants and a third party (the “Settlement Agreements”). As provided for in the settlement agreements, the plaintiff amended its notice of civil action to expressly waive its right to recover any part of the loss ultimately attributable to the fault of one of the parties to the settlement for which a non-colonizing party could claim a contribution or compensation. Prior to the trial, Conarroe reached an agreement with the province and JPW on a BC Ferries settlement agreement and the filing of dismissal orders.

Before British Columbia Ferry Corp. and. al.c. T&N plc And. para., (1995), 16 BCLR (3d) 115 (CA), the key issue in the pre-judicial settlement agreements was whether a non-unifying party could require an additional financial contribution from the party that had settled its claim with the claimant. BC Ferry regulated this by applying the deep-rooted principle of the Contributions Act, according to which a defendant cannot be forced by another defendant to pay more than its proportionate share of the loss. In the three scenarios above, non-established parties will want to know how much the conciliating party paid to the plaintiff. There are questions of confidentiality and privilege. Is the applicant required to disclose the settlement amount to the parties who did not charge? In this case, Neilson J. found that disclosure of the portion of the settlement agreement relating to the amount of settlement between the plaintiff and the ALS defendants did not need to be presented, as relevance had not been demonstrated. I agree with that conclusion.

The Pierrenger deals have already been discussed on a blog by Dale Orlando and Brock Turville. More information on the Pierringer agreements can be found here. A BC Ferries agreement gives one or more defendants the opportunity to agree on a multi-party proceeding based on the plaintiff`s agreement to waive the recovery of a portion of the loss ultimately attributable to the settlement parties from the defendants who are not parties to the settlement. In dismissing Greyback`s claim, Justice Warren found that a BC Ferry contract does not convert joint and several liability between non-billing defendants into multiple liability and does not affect claims for contributions and compensation between defendants who do not charge […].