Battenberg v Michell Sillar [2003] NSWSC 308

Battenberg v Michell Sillar [2003] NSWSC 308

The claims failed because the Court rejected the plaintiff's essential evidence about the alleged retainer, representations, and reliance, preferred the evidence of Ms Snelling and supporting witnesses, and found that the plaintiff was unreliable and had reconstructed, glossed, and fabricated material parts of his account. Without the alleged retainer or representations, the plaintiff's claims in negligence, breach of retainer, and under the Trade Practices Act and Fair Trading Act could not succeed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 April 2003
Procedural Posture
Common Law Action Alleging Solicitors' Negligence, Breach of Retainer, and Statutory Contraventions / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the third to eighth defendants.
Legal Topics
["solicitors' Retainer" 'negligent Misrepresentation' 'trade Practices Act' 'fair Trading Act' 'credibility of Witnesses' 'damages' 'costs']
['professional Negligence' 'contract' 'consumer Protection' 'civil Procedure'] ["solicitors' Retainer" 'negligent Misrepresentation' 'trade Practices Act' 'fair Trading Act' 'credibility of Witnesses' 'damages' 'costs']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Common Law Action Alleging Solicitors' Negligence, Breach of Retainer, and Statutory Contraventions / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendant solicitors were retained to advise the plaintiff on management of his debt to National Australia Bank, his guarantee of Craigstown Pty Limited's indebtedness, refinancing, and completion of the Darjeeling purchase." 'Whether representations allegedly made by Ms Snelling amounted to negligent misrepresentations or supported claims for breach of retainer, negligence, or statutory contraventions.' "Whether the plaintiff's evidence about the alleged retainer, representations, reliance, and subsequent events was reliable." 'Whether indemnity costs should be ordered.']

Ratio Decidendi

The claims failed because the Court rejected the plaintiff's essential evidence about the alleged retainer, representations, and reliance, preferred the evidence of Ms Snelling and supporting witnesses, and found that the plaintiff was unreliable and had reconstructed, glossed, and fabricated material parts of his account. Without the alleged retainer or representations, the plaintiff's claims in negligence, breach of retainer, and under the Trade Practices Act and Fair Trading Act could not succeed.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the third to eighth defendants.

Orders

  • ['Entry of judgment for the third to eighth defendants, being those defendants sued as partners of the firm practising as Michell Sillar.' 'The plaintiff is to pay the costs of those defendants.']