BURT and ANOR v WARE [1998] NSWCA 48
Where a solicitor has conveyed essential advice orally and taken care to ensure it is understood, the absence of written advice does not constitute negligence if there is no evidence the client failed to understand or that confusion was or should have been apparent to the solicitor.
- Parties
- Appellant: Burt; Respondent: Ware
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 28 October 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal upheld; cross-appeal dismissed; verdict for the defendants; respondent to pay costs.
- Legal Topics
- Negligence of Solicitors, Client Advice, Extinguishment of Workers Compensation Rights, Oral Vs Written Advice in Settlement
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Burt
Appellant
Ware
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the solicitors were negligent for failing to communicate in writing that settlement would extinguish the client's workers compensation rights
- 2 Whether oral advice is sufficient to discharge the solicitor's duty in these circumstances
Ratio Decidendi
Where a solicitor has conveyed essential advice orally and taken care to ensure it is understood, the absence of written advice does not constitute negligence if there is no evidence the client failed to understand or that confusion was or should have been apparent to the solicitor.
Court Disposition
Appeal upheld; cross-appeal dismissed; verdict for the defendants; respondent to pay costs.
Orders
- Judgment and orders of 3 November 1997 set aside
- Verdict for the defendants in the proceedings below
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