Reid v Wright [2014] NSWSC 795

The questions and requests for further and better particulars identified by the defendant are proper requests for particulars, not matters of evidence, and must be answered by the plaintiff.

Parties: Plaintiff: Christine Reid; Defendant: Diane Wright t/a D M Wright and Associates Solicitors
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 17 June 2014
Procedural Posture: Negligence, Professional Liability / Interlocutory Application for Further and Better Particulars
Outcome: Application (notice of motion) for further and better particulars granted.
Legal Topics: Requests for Further and Better Particulars, Solicitor's Duties, Particularisation of Negligence, Loss and Damage – Quantification

Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Requests for Further and Better Particulars Solicitor's Duties Particularisation of Negligence Loss and Damage – Quantification

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2

Parties

Christine Reid

Plaintiff

Diane Wright t/a D M Wright and Associates Solicitors

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Negligence, Professional Liability / Interlocutory Application for Further and Better Particulars

Legal Issues

1 Whether requests for further and better particulars are proper or call for matters of evidence
2 Entitlement to particulars necessary to understand claims of negligence and damage

Ratio Decidendi

The questions and requests for further and better particulars identified by the defendant are proper requests for particulars, not matters of evidence, and must be answered by the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Application (notice of motion) for further and better particulars granted.

Orders

Plaintiff to provide further and better particulars as specified in the defendant’s requests.
Parties to bring in short minutes of order to reflect the reasons.