American Foods Pty Ltd v Davis & Anor [2001] NSWCA 421

American Foods Pty Ltd v Davis & Anor [2001] NSWCA 421

There was no fairly arguable case that the correspondence converted the claim against the client from an indemnity claim into a damages claim for breach of contract. The later claim was made expressly as a claim to indemnity under a contract for indemnity still on foot, and there were insufficient grounds to conclude that Patten DCJ was wrong. Even if the real issue was whether the solicitors should have raised the limitation defence, the manner in which the case was put before the magistrate did not support the applicant's argument.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal From the Determination of a Separate Question by Patten DCJ in the District Court
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' "solicitors' Negligence" 'limitation Defence' 'indemnity Claim' 'breach of Contract' 'repudiation']
['civil Procedure' 'professional Negligence' 'contract Law' 'limitation of Actions'] ['leave to Appeal' "solicitors' Negligence" 'limitation Defence' 'indemnity Claim' 'breach of Contract' 'repudiation']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal From the Determination of a Separate Question by Patten DCJ in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave to appeal should be granted from Patten DCJ's determination of the separate question." 'Whether the limitation period for the claim against the client commenced when the claimant became out of pocket because the claim was one for indemnity.' 'Whether letters of 17 March and 19 August 1988 showed that the claim against the client was instead a claim for damages for breach of contract consequent upon acceptance of repudiation.' 'Whether the solicitors should have caused a limitation defence to be brought in the proceedings against the client.']

Ratio Decidendi

There was no fairly arguable case that the correspondence converted the claim against the client from an indemnity claim into a damages claim for breach of contract. The later claim was made expressly as a claim to indemnity under a contract for indemnity still on foot, and there were insufficient grounds to conclude that Patten DCJ was wrong. Even if the real issue was whether the solicitors should have raised the limitation defence, the manner in which the case was put before the magistrate did not support the applicant's argument.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Application dismissed with costs.']