Baker v Sheridan (No 2) [2005] NSWSC 121

Baker v Sheridan (No 2) [2005] NSWSC 121

The first cross-claim failed because, on the pleadings and the findings in the principal judgment, the invalidating circumstances did not invalidate the deed of transfer. In any event, the solicitors' retainer was limited to preparing documents and taking legal steps to put into effect an agreement already reached by Mr Rigg, Mrs Baker and Trevor Baker, so there was no real conflict between the interests of Mr Rigg and Mrs Baker. No advice or information within the scope of the retainer was shown to have been withheld because of any conflict, the alleged non-disclosure was not a material fact within Brickenden, and Mr Rigg would not have acted differently if it had been disclosed. The...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 March 2005
Procedural Posture
First Cross Claim Alleging Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Breach of Common Law Duty of Care by Solicitors / Judgment Determining the First Cross Claim
Outcome
Verdict for the cross-defendants on the first cross-claim.
Legal Topics
['breach of Fiduciary Duty' 'conflict of Duty and Duty' 'non Disclosure of Material Facts by Fiduciary' 'common Law Duty of Care' 'solicitor Retainer' 'causation']
['equity' 'professional Negligence' "solicitors' Duties"] ['breach of Fiduciary Duty' 'conflict of Duty and Duty' 'non Disclosure of Material Facts by Fiduciary' 'common Law Duty of Care' 'solicitor Retainer' 'causation']

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

First Cross Claim Alleging Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Breach of Common Law Duty of Care by Solicitors / Judgment Determining the First Cross Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first defendants were retained by Stephen James Rigg as solicitors to prepare documents and take legal steps to put the transfer agreement into legal effect.' "Whether the solicitors' acting for both Mr Rigg and Mrs Baker involved a conflict of interest or conflict of duty and duty." 'Whether any non-disclosure by the solicitors was a non-disclosure of a material fact within the principle in Brickenden v London Loan & Savings Co [1934] 3 DLR 465.' 'Whether the solicitors breached a common law duty of care by acting for all parties and failing to obtain fully informed consent.' "Whether any alleged breach caused Mr Rigg loss, including costs of defending Mrs Baker's claims."]

Ratio Decidendi

The first cross-claim failed because, on the pleadings and the findings in the principal judgment, the invalidating circumstances did not invalidate the deed of transfer. In any event, the solicitors' retainer was limited to preparing documents and taking legal steps to put into effect an agreement already reached by Mr Rigg, Mrs Baker and Trevor Baker, so there was no real conflict between the interests of Mr Rigg and Mrs Baker. No advice or information within the scope of the retainer was shown to have been withheld because of any conflict, the alleged non-disclosure was not a material fact within Brickenden, and Mr Rigg would not have acted differently if it had been disclosed. The...

Court Disposition

Verdict for the cross-defendants on the first cross-claim.

Orders

  • ['Verdict for the cross-defendants on the first cross-claim.']