The Solicitors' Liability Committee v Gray, Garrick Lewis & Winter, Michael Frederick [1997] FCA 652

The Solicitors' Liability Committee v Gray, Garrick Lewis & Winter, Michael Frederick [1997] FCA 652

The Court held that the liability incurred by Gray and Winter in settling the claim for damages brought against them did not arise in connection with their practice as solicitors but from entrepreneurial activities in property syndication. Therefore, the liability was not covered by their professional indemnity insurance policy.

Parties
Appellant (cross Respondent): The Solicitors' Liability Committee; Respondent (cross Appellant): Garrick Lewis Gray; Respondent (cross Appellant): Michael Frederick Winter
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 January 1997
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal From the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Cross-appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Professional Indemnity Insurance, Solicitors' Duties, Scope of Legal Practice, Entrepreneurial Activities Vs Professional Activities, Construction of Insurance Policies
Legal Profession Insurance Law Professional Indemnity Insurance Solicitors' Duties Scope of Legal Practice Entrepreneurial Activities Vs Professional Activities Construction of Insurance Policies

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Solicitors' Liability Committee

Appellant (cross Respondent)

Garrick Lewis Gray

Respondent (cross Appellant)

Michael Frederick Winter

Respondent (cross Appellant)

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal From the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether liability incurred by solicitors in the settlement of a damages action arose in connection with their practice as solicitors for the purposes of professional indemnity insurance.
  2. 2 Whether the activities of solicitors promoting and syndicating property investment schemes were professional or entrepreneurial in nature.
  3. 3 Whether the costs and expenses incurred in post-settlement proceedings were covered by the indemnity insurance.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the liability incurred by Gray and Winter in settling the claim for damages brought against them did not arise in connection with their practice as solicitors but from entrepreneurial activities in property syndication. Therefore, the liability was not covered by their professional indemnity insurance policy.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Cross-appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal be allowed, with costs.
  • The cross-appeal be dismissed, with costs.