Solicitors' Liability Committee v Gray [1997] FCA 1627

Solicitors' Liability Committee v Gray [1997] FCA 1627

The liability incurred by Gray and Winter in settling the claim for damages was not incurred in connection with their practice as solicitors but arose from entrepreneurial activities related to property syndication and promotion. Accordingly, the professional indemnity insurance policy did not cover such liability or costs.

Parties
Appellant (cross Respondent): The Solicitors' Liability Committee; Respondent (cross Appellant): Garrick Lewis Gray; Respondent (cross Appellant): Michael Frederick Winter
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 July 1997
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment of Full Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed, cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Professional Indemnity Insurance, Solicitor's Practice, Entrepreneurial Activities, Scope of Indemnity, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Negligence, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct
Insurance Law Legal Profession Professional Indemnity Insurance Solicitor's Practice Entrepreneurial Activities Scope of Indemnity Breach of Fiduciary Duty Negligence +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 15 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 of Full Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether liability incurred in settling a claim for damages was incurred in connection with the practice as solicitors
  2. 2 Whether costs incurred in post-settlement proceedings are covered under the professional indemnity insurance policy
  3. 3 Construction of the insuring clauses in relation to entrepreneurial versus professional activities

Ratio Decidendi

The liability incurred by Gray and Winter in settling the claim for damages was not incurred in connection with their practice as solicitors but arose from entrepreneurial activities related to property syndication and promotion. Accordingly, the professional indemnity insurance policy did not cover such liability or costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed, cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

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