Thompson & Anor t/as Staunton and Thompson Lawyers v Schacht (No 2) [2015] NSWCA 70

Thompson & Anor t/as Staunton and Thompson Lawyers v Schacht (No 2) [2015] NSWCA 70

The appellants had clearly and timely raised the issue that the respondent's reduced spousal maintenance liability produced a credit, final orders had not been entered, and no prejudice was shown. The Court's earlier findings as to the hypothetical spousal maintenance obligations logically required a $140,800 credit against damages, and there was no warrant for a discount for vicissitudes.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Concerning Damages for Solicitors' Negligence / Application to Reopen Judgment After Principal Appeal Judgment But Before Final Orders Were Entered
Outcome
Application to reopen granted; damages reduced and judgment entered for the respondent in the amount of $382,488; respondent ordered to pay the appellants' costs in this Court.
Legal Topics
['application to Reopen Judgment' 'calculation of Damages' 'spousal Maintenance' 'binding Financial Agreement' 'costs']
['civil Procedure' 'professional Negligence' 'damages' 'family Law'] ['application to Reopen Judgment' 'calculation of Damages' 'spousal Maintenance' 'binding Financial Agreement' '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

Civil Appeal Concerning Damages for Solicitors' Negligence / Application to Reopen Judgment After Principal Appeal Judgment But Before Final Orders Were Entered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should reopen its principal judgment where the appellants had raised an issue about credit for spousal maintenance benefit and final orders had not been entered.' 'Whether the respondent obtained a benefit in respect of spousal maintenance that should reduce the damages payable by the appellants.' 'Whether a discount for vicissitudes should be applied to the spousal maintenance calculation.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants had clearly and timely raised the issue that the respondent's reduced spousal maintenance liability produced a credit, final orders had not been entered, and no prejudice was shown. The Court's earlier findings as to the hypothetical spousal maintenance obligations logically required a $140,800 credit against damages, and there was no warrant for a discount for vicissitudes.

Court Disposition

Application to reopen granted; damages reduced and judgment entered for the respondent in the amount of $382,488; respondent ordered to pay the appellants' costs in this Court.

Orders

  • ['Give judgment in the amount of $382,488 in favour of Mr Schacht, in lieu of the judgment entered on 21 May 2013.' "The respondent to pay the appellants' costs in this Court on the ordinary basis, including costs of the notice of motion filed 5 September 2014." 'The parties to provide agreed consequential orders...