Cooper v Winter [2013] NSWCA 261

Cooper v Winter [2013] NSWCA 261

There was no ongoing or relevant retainer between Mr Cooper and Mr Winter relating to the Bells Line of Road property. Mr Winter did not owe Mr Cooper a duty of care or fiduciary duty in the circumstances beyond the discrete matters for which he was retained. The evidence did not establish negligence or breach of duty, or that any loss claimed by Mr Cooper was caused by the respondents’ conduct. Accordingly, the appeal failed on all grounds.

Parties
Appellant: Peter Joseph Cooper; First Respondent: Ronald William Winter; Second Respondent: Neill Stewart Williamson; Third Respondent: Anthony Orazio Brieschetto
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Solicitors' Duties, Retainer, Duty of Care, Fiduciary Duties
Torts Negligence Solicitors' Duties Retainer Duty of Care Fiduciary Duties

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Joseph Cooper

Appellant

Ronald William Winter

First Respondent

Neill Stewart Williamson

Second Respondent

Anthony Orazio Brieschetto

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the primary judge erred in holding that there was no solicitor/client retainer and no duty of care or fiduciary duty owed to the appellant in relation to the transaction in question
  2. 2 Whether there was a breach of any duty, and whether any loss was caused as a result of the conduct in question

Ratio Decidendi

There was no ongoing or relevant retainer between Mr Cooper and Mr Winter relating to the Bells Line of Road property. Mr Winter did not owe Mr Cooper a duty of care or fiduciary duty in the circumstances beyond the discrete matters for which he was retained. The evidence did not establish negligence or breach of duty, or that any loss claimed by Mr Cooper was caused by the respondents’ conduct. Accordingly, the appeal failed on all grounds.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.