| Case name: |
Ingham v. Creston (Town) |
|
|
|
| Jurisdiction: |
Canada - British Columbia |
|
| Court: |
Expropriation Compensation Board |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Parties: |
Name |
|
Appearing as |
| |
Ingham, Albert Cecil |
|
Claimant |
| |
Ingham, Lillian Rose |
|
Claimant |
| |
Jamieson, Frank Herbert |
|
Claimant |
| |
Jamieson, Mildred Johanna |
|
Claimant |
| |
Kowalski, Helen |
|
Claimant |
| |
Kowalski, Russel |
|
Claimant |
| |
Kowalski, Samuel |
|
Claimant |
| |
Creston (Town) |
|
Authority |
|
| Decision makers: |
Name |
Designation |
|
Walls, Sharon I. |
Vice-Chair |
|
| Lawyers: |
Name |
|
Appearing for |
| |
Burke, Reinhard |
|
Claimant |
| |
Melville, J. Bruce |
|
Authority |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Decision: |
Application to settle an order for costs. Two issues were raised: whether payments made toward an order for costs should be applied first to interest or first to principal and whether interest awarded should continue to run after the Tariff of Costs took effect. On the first issue, the Board held that if the payer does not specify how payments are intended to be applied then the payee can allocate them first to accrued interest. It also held that interest continued to run on this award despite the introduction of the Tariff. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ExLaw citation: |
[2001] EXLAW 324 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
