Major v Wakeling [2000] NSWCA 370

Major v Wakeling [2000] NSWCA 370

The Court of Appeal found Mr Wakeling was acting as Mrs Major's solicitor in respect of the relevant transactions, owed her duties of care including disclosure of his personal interest and advice as to the risks, and failed in those duties, causing her loss. Had she been properly advised, she would not have entered into the guarantee and mortgage. The trial judge's contrary factual findings were against the weight of the evidence and were set aside.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal After Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment for appellant/plaintiff; remitted for damages assessment in accordance with submissions.
Legal Topics
["solicitors' Duties" 'negligence' 'fiduciary Duties' 'causation' 'damages' 'disclosure of Interest' 'fair Trading Act']
['torts' 'professional Negligence' 'contract' 'equity'] ["solicitors' Duties" 'negligence' 'fiduciary Duties' 'causation' 'damages' 'disclosure of Interest' 'fair Trading Act']

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

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Mr Wakeling, solicitor, owed a duty of care to Mrs Major in connection with her entering a guarantee and mortgage' 'Whether Mr Wakeling breached his duty by failing to inform Mrs Major of the risks and his personal interest' "Whether Mr Wakeling was acting as Mrs Major's solicitor and assumed responsibility to advise her" "Whether Mr Wakeling's breaches caused Mrs Major's loss"]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal found Mr Wakeling was acting as Mrs Major's solicitor in respect of the relevant transactions, owed her duties of care including disclosure of his personal interest and advice as to the risks, and failed in those duties, causing her loss. Had she been properly advised, she would not have entered into the guarantee and mortgage. The trial judge's contrary factual findings were against the weight of the evidence and were set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment for appellant/plaintiff; remitted for damages assessment in accordance with submissions.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'Judgment below set aside.' 'Judgment to be entered for the appellant/plaintiff.' "The amount of the judgment to be calculated in accordance with paragraphs 24, 25 and 26 of the appellant's written submissions, set out in par 110 of the reasons of Priestley JA." 'Orders 1, 2 and 3 to operate from...