CARR & ANOR v FISCHER & ORS [2006] NSWCA 313

CARR & ANOR v FISCHER & ORS [2006] NSWCA 313

The solicitors’ investigations and advice, though containing an error regarding the identification of Jack Roberts' prior bankruptcy, were based on reasonable inquiry in the circumstances. No actionable breach is established, or, if there was a breach, the appellants would have proceeded with the investments regardless. The primary judge’s factual findings, credibility determinations, and causation conclusions are affirmed. Accordingly, the appeal fails.

Parties
Appellant: Peter Joseph Carr; Appellant: Boston Holdings Pty Ltd; Respondent: John Howard Fischer; Respondent: Neil Jamieson; Respondent: John David Watts; Respondent: Geoffrey Mark Roberson; Respondent: John Joseph Cotter
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Supreme Court Common Law Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Solicitor's Duties, Investment Advice, Negligence, Causation, Breach of Duty
Professional Negligence Legal Profession Solicitor's Duties Investment Advice Negligence Causation Breach of Duty

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Joseph Carr

Appellant

Boston Holdings Pty Ltd

Appellant

John Howard Fischer

Respondent

Neil Jamieson

Respondent

John David Watts

Respondent

Geoffrey Mark Roberson

Respondent

John Joseph Cotter

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Supreme Court Common Law Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the solicitors were negligent in the advice and investigations relating to the investment.
  2. 2 Whether the breach, if any, caused the appellants' loss.

Ratio Decidendi

The solicitors’ investigations and advice, though containing an error regarding the identification of Jack Roberts' prior bankruptcy, were based on reasonable inquiry in the circumstances. No actionable breach is established, or, if there was a breach, the appellants would have proceeded with the investments regardless. The primary judge’s factual findings, credibility determinations, and causation conclusions are affirmed. Accordingly, the appeal fails.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Appellants to pay the costs of the respondents.