Gordon Leslie Rowell as trustee of the Estate of Burnett Leslie Carlisle (deceased) and others v Michael Declan Heffernan and others [2013] NSWSC 404
The Court was satisfied on the medical evidence that the First Defendant was under a legal incapacity. Having regard to the pleadings, the available evidence, the First Defendant's limited ability to put on evidence because of his incapacity, the prima facie strength of the claims, the risks and all the circumstances, the settlements for payments totalling $491,378 to resolve claims stated as totalling $608,044.60 were beneficial to the First Defendant's interests and should be approved.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 22 April 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Equity Division Proceedings Involving Claims and Cross Claims for Professional Negligence, Breach of Statutory Duties, Breach of Trust and Breach of Fiduciary Duty / Application for Court Approval of Compromise of Claims Against a Person Under Legal Incapacity
- Outcome
- The settlements recorded in the deeds of settlement dated 9 April 2013 and 16 April 2013 were approved; the proceedings between the First and Second Plaintiffs and the First Defendant and the First Statement of Cross-Claim were dismissed with no order as to costs.
- Legal Topics
- ['approval of Settlement' 'person Under Legal Incapacity' 'solicitor Duties' 'breach of Fiduciary Duty' 'breach of Trust']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Equity Division Proceedings Involving Claims and Cross Claims for Professional Negligence, Breach of Statutory Duties, Breach of Trust and Breach of Fiduciary Duty / Application for Court Approval of Compromise of Claims Against a Person Under Legal Incapacity
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the First Defendant was under a legal incapacity for the purpose of s 76 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005.' 'Whether the settlements recorded in the deeds dated 9 April 2013 and 16 April 2013 were beneficial to the interests of the First Defendant.' 'Whether the Court should approve the compromises and related releases.']
Ratio Decidendi
The Court was satisfied on the medical evidence that the First Defendant was under a legal incapacity. Having regard to the pleadings, the available evidence, the First Defendant's limited ability to put on evidence because of his incapacity, the prima facie strength of the claims, the risks and all the circumstances, the settlements for payments totalling $491,378 to resolve claims stated as totalling $608,044.60 were beneficial to the First Defendant's interests and should be approved.
Court Disposition
The settlements recorded in the deeds of settlement dated 9 April 2013 and 16 April 2013 were approved; the proceedings between the First and Second Plaintiffs and the First Defendant and the First Statement of Cross-Claim were dismissed with no order as to costs.
Orders
- ['The Proceedings between the First and Second Plaintiffs and the First Defendant be dismissed.' 'No order as to costs with the intent that the First and Second Plaintiffs and the First Defendant will bear their own costs in relation to the Proceedings between them.' 'The Court approves the terms of settlement and...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment