Monica Frances Symonds and Gerald Symonds v Cedric Borsmann Vass and 24 Ors [2007] NSWSC 1436

Monica Frances Symonds and Gerald Symonds v Cedric Borsmann Vass and 24 Ors [2007] NSWSC 1436

Dunhill Madden was negligent and in breach of contract for not properly preparing the plaintiffs' case, including failing to address issues related to corporate plaintiffs, quantification of damages, and pleading, resulting in wasted fees to the plaintiffs. However, any loss relating to the compromised outcome or conduct of the action in court is protected by advocate immunity. Plaintiffs were entitled to recover damages equivalent to fees wasted due to such breaches, but not for the loss of a chance in the underlying litigation.

Parties
Plaintiff: Monica Frances Symonds; Plaintiff: Gerald Symonds; Defendants: Cedric Borsmann Vass and 24 Ors
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiffs for wasted fees; no claim for lost chance or damages from underlying compromise permitted by advocate immunity.
Legal Topics
Advocate Immunity, Solicitor's Duties, Limitation Periods, Fiduciary Duty, Damages, Interest on Judgment
Professional Negligence Contract Law Legal Ethics Advocate Immunity Solicitor's Duties Limitation Periods Fiduciary Duty Damages +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Monica Frances Symonds

Plaintiff

Gerald Symonds

Plaintiff

Cedric Borsmann Vass and 24 Ors

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Dunhill Madden breached their duties of care, contract and fiduciary obligations to the plaintiffs in prosecuting proceedings against Egan.
  2. 2 Whether advocate immunity prevented the plaintiffs' claim in relation to the conduct before Dowd J.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs suffered loss and were entitled to damages and interest.

Ratio Decidendi

Dunhill Madden was negligent and in breach of contract for not properly preparing the plaintiffs' case, including failing to address issues related to corporate plaintiffs, quantification of damages, and pleading, resulting in wasted fees to the plaintiffs. However, any loss relating to the compromised outcome or conduct of the action in court is protected by advocate immunity. Plaintiffs were entitled to recover damages equivalent to fees wasted due to such breaches, but not for the loss of a chance in the underlying litigation.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Plaintiffs for wasted fees; no claim for lost chance or damages from underlying compromise permitted by advocate immunity.

Orders

  • Verdict and judgment for the Plaintiffs against the Defendants in the sum of $320,198, inclusive of interest to date.
  • Defendants to pay Plaintiffs' costs.