Moore v Gillis and Ors [2022] NSWSC 14

Moore v Gillis and Ors [2022] NSWSC 14

The plaintiff failed to prove liability. The Court preferred Mr Gillis's account of the 2009 redundancy advice and found that the advice, viewed prospectively, did not fall below the standard of competent employment solicitors; alternatively, any negligence was protected by advocates' immunity. The 13 December 2011 advice about the offer to compromise was not misleading or negligent because it was a genuinely held professional opinion based on reasonable grounds, assessed in the context of the broader advice given by counsel and solicitors. In any event, Mr Moore had fixed a bottom line of about $800,000 clear of costs and did not prove that different advice would have caused him to...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Torts – Professional Negligence; Misleading or Deceptive Conduct; Breach of Fiduciary Duty Arising From Legal Advice About Employment Litigation Settlement / Principal Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for each defendant as against the plaintiff; plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs.
Legal Topics
["solicitors' Advice on Settlement Offers" 'offer to Compromise' "advocates' Immunity" 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'breach of Fiduciary Duty' 'causation' 'loss of Opportunity' 'contributory Negligence' 'limitation Period' 'quantum of Economic Loss']
['torts' 'professional Negligence' 'australian Consumer Law' 'equity' 'employment Litigation' 'civil Procedure'] ["solicitors' Advice on Settlement Offers" 'offer to Compromise' "advocates' Immunity" 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'breach of Fiduciary Duty' 'causation' 'loss of Opportunity' 'contributory Negligence' 'limitation Period' 'quantum of Economic Loss']

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

Torts – Professional Negligence; Misleading or Deceptive Conduct; Breach of Fiduciary Duty Arising From Legal Advice About Employment Litigation Settlement / Principal Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the legal practice negligently advised Mr Moore in 2009 about preserving a redundancy entitlement after secondment to Westpac.' "Whether any alleged negligence in the 2009 redundancy advice was barred by advocates' immunity." "Whether the written advice of 13 December 2011 about Westpac's offer to compromise contravened s 18 Australian Consumer Law (NSW) or was negligent." 'Whether Mr Moore proved causation in relation to rejection of the offer to compromise.' "Whether Mr Gillis breached fiduciary duties or was negligent in dealing with Westpac's 15 December 2011 global offer subject to a one in, all in stipulation." 'What damages would have been assessed contingently if liability had been established.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to prove liability. The Court preferred Mr Gillis's account of the 2009 redundancy advice and found that the advice, viewed prospectively, did not fall below the standard of competent employment solicitors; alternatively, any negligence was protected by advocates' immunity. The 13 December 2011 advice about the offer to compromise was not misleading or negligent because it was a genuinely held professional opinion based on reasonable grounds, assessed in the context of the broader advice given by counsel and solicitors. In any event, Mr Moore had fixed a bottom line of about $800,000 clear of costs and did not prove that different advice would have caused him to...

Court Disposition

Judgment for each defendant as against the plaintiff; plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for each defendant as against the plaintiff.' 'The plaintiff to pay the defendants costs.' 'Liberty to apply on short notice.']