Glenice Bailey v Warwick La hood [2017] NSWSC 1354

Glenice Bailey v Warwick La hood [2017] NSWSC 1354

The plaintiff failed to establish negligence because no competent solicitor appraised of the extensive inconsistent material could have advised that she had high prospects of success against Doherty Partners, and the defendants' advice that she did not have high prospects was justified. The plaintiff also failed to prove reliance, as her own evidence was that she did not agree with the advice and still thought she had very high prospects. The pleaded fiduciary duty and misleading or deceptive conduct claims were not made out and, in any event, causation was not established. Judgment was therefore entered for the defendants.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence, Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Claim Against Solicitors / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the defendants on the plaintiff's claim.
Legal Topics
["solicitors' Duty of Care" 'prospects Advice' 'reliance and Causation' 'breach of Fiduciary Duty' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'crown Land Restrictions' 'loss of Chance and Damages']
['negligence' 'professional Liability' 'equity' 'consumer Law' 'property Law'] ["solicitors' Duty of Care" 'prospects Advice' 'reliance and Causation' 'breach of Fiduciary Duty' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'crown Land Restrictions' 'loss of Chance and Damages']

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

Professional Negligence, Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Claim Against Solicitors / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendants' advice that the plaintiff did not have high prospects of success against Doherty Partners was negligently given." "Whether the plaintiff relied on the defendants' advice in not commencing proceedings against Doherty Partners." 'Whether the defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiff.' 'Whether the defendants engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law or s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).' 'If liability had been established, how damages and loss of chance issues concerning Hazeldene and Crown land matters might be assessed.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to establish negligence because no competent solicitor appraised of the extensive inconsistent material could have advised that she had high prospects of success against Doherty Partners, and the defendants' advice that she did not have high prospects was justified. The plaintiff also failed to prove reliance, as her own evidence was that she did not agree with the advice and still thought she had very high prospects. The pleaded fiduciary duty and misleading or deceptive conduct claims were not made out and, in any event, causation was not established. Judgment was therefore entered for the defendants.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the defendants on the plaintiff's claim.

Orders

  • ["Judgment for the defendants on the plaintiff's claim." 'The parties are to be heard on the issue of costs.']