Coshott v Barry [2007] NSWSC 1094

Coshott v Barry [2007] NSWSC 1094

All of the plaintiffs' claims were rejected because (a) the essential decisions and conduct challenged were covered by advocate's immunity as they were intimately connected with the conduct of litigation, (b) causation and reliance were not established on the available evidence, (c) estoppel was not supported by a sufficiently clear and unambiguous representation, and (d) loss or damage was not established even if a breach were assumed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence; Civil / Final Judgment at First Instance
Outcome
Verdict for the defendant. All claims dismissed.
Legal Topics
["advocate's Immunity" "solicitors' Duty of Care" 'estoppel' 'bankruptcy Act Procedures' 'litigation Practice' 'costs Proceedings']
['professional Negligence' 'legal Profession Law' 'civil Procedure'] ["advocate's Immunity" "solicitors' Duty of Care" 'estoppel' 'bankruptcy Act Procedures' 'litigation Practice' 'costs Proceedings']

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; Civil / Final Judgment at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant solicitor was professionally negligent in handling various legal matters for the plaintiffs' "Whether advocate's immunity applied to some or all alleged acts or omissions" 'Whether estoppel prevented the defendant from charging certain legal costs' 'Whether there was a failure to act with reasonable diligence by the defendant in the Vardas claim' 'Whether causation and loss were established for any alleged breach']

Ratio Decidendi

All of the plaintiffs' claims were rejected because (a) the essential decisions and conduct challenged were covered by advocate's immunity as they were intimately connected with the conduct of litigation, (b) causation and reliance were not established on the available evidence, (c) estoppel was not supported by a sufficiently clear and unambiguous representation, and (d) loss or damage was not established even if a breach were assumed.

Court Disposition

Verdict for the defendant. All claims dismissed.

Orders

  • []