Coshott v Barry [2009] NSWCA 34

Coshott v Barry [2009] NSWCA 34

The appeal was dismissed because the evidence established that the solicitor was not negligent, the appellants determined the course of their litigation, causation and loss were not proven, estoppel failed due to insufficient clarity and reliance on the representation, and, in relevant contexts, advocate's immunity applied. The trial judge's findings were affirmed.

Parties
First Appellant: Ljiljana Coshott; Second Appellant: Robert Gilbert Coshott; Respondent: Stephen Michael Barry
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Advocate's Immunity, Loss of Commercial Opportunity, Professional Liability, Promissory Estoppel
Legal Practitioners Torts Negligence Advocate's Immunity Loss of Commercial Opportunity Professional Liability Promissory Estoppel

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ljiljana Coshott

First Appellant

Robert Gilbert Coshott

Second Appellant

Stephen Michael Barry

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether solicitor was negligent in handling clients' case
  2. 2 Whether clients exercised control over conduct of proceedings
  3. 3 Applicability of advocate's immunity

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the evidence established that the solicitor was not negligent, the appellants determined the course of their litigation, causation and loss were not proven, estoppel failed due to insufficient clarity and reliance on the representation, and, in relevant contexts, advocate's immunity applied. The trial judge's findings were affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.