District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Alam v Giampietro [2020] NSWDC 471 Hearing dates: 3, 4, 5, 8 April; 29, 30, 31 July; 1, 2, 5 August; 13 November; 2 December 2019; 22 June 2020 (written submissions) Date of orders: 21 August 2020 Decision date: 21 August 2020 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: P Taylor SC DCJ Decision: (1) Judgment in favour of the first plaintiff, Mr Alam, and second plaintiff, Mrs Saqiba Sattar, against the first defendant in the sum of $165,693.65.
(2) Judgment for the second defendant against the plaintiffs.
(3) Proceedings by the third plaintiff, Mrs Qamar Sattar, dismissed.
Catchwords: NEGLIGENCE – professional negligence – client vs solicitor and barrister – advocate’s immunity
ESTOPPEL — issue estoppel — decisions to which applicable
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 99
Evidence Act 1995, s 91
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 7.10
Cases Cited: Alam v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited (Unreported, District Court of New South Wales, Gibb DCJ, 18 March 2016)
Alam v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited (Unreported, District Court of New South Wales, Gibb
DCJ, 15 December 2016)
Alam v QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd [2018] FCA 1560
Amalgamated Engineering Union (Aust Section), Ex parte; Re Jackson (1937) 38 SR (NSW) 13; (1937) 55 WN (NSW) 7
Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc [1991] 2 AC 93
Attorney General For Trinidad and Tobago v Eriché [1893] AC 518
Attwells v Jackson Lalic Lawyers Pty Ltd (2016) 259 CLR 1
Blair v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464; [1939] HCA 23
Cachia v Isaacs (1985) 3 NSWLR 366
D’Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid (2005) 223 CLR 1
Donnellan v Woodland [2012] NSWCA 433
Giannarelli v Wraith (1988) 165 CLR 543
Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100
Jackson v Goldsmith (1950) 81 CLR 446
Karwala v Skrzypczak Re Estate of Ratajczak [2007] NSWSC 931
Kendirjian v Lepore (2017) 259 CLR 275
Kuru v New South Wales [2008] HCA 26
Maurice Blackburn Cashman v Brown (2011) 242 CLR 647; [2011] HCA 22
Trustees for the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Bathurst v Hine [2016] NSWCA 213
Mulgrave Central Mill Co Ltd v Hagglunds Drives Pty Ltd [2001] QSC 040
Pollnow v Armstrong [2000] NSWCA 245
Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 507; [2015] HCA 28
Texts Cited: Commonwealth of Australia v Cockatoo Dockyard Pty Limited [2007] HCATrans 150
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Muhammad Mahmud Alam (first plaintiff)
Saqiba Sattar (second plaintiff)
Qamar Sattar (third plaintiff)
Leonardo Giampietro t/as Legal & Company (first defendant)
Quang T Nguyen (second defendant)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Ms P A Horvath with Ms G Keesing (first defendant)
Mr R Carey (second defendant)
Kennedys (first defendant)
Sparke Helmore Lawyers (second defendant)
File Number(s): 2017/61840 Publication restriction: None
Judgment
A. Introduction
-
Muhammad Mahmud Alam, his wife, Saqiba Sattar, and her mother, Qamar Sattar, (“the Alam family”) were involved in litigation against their insurer, QBE, arising from fire…
Continue reading Alam v Giampietro
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Alam v Giampietro [2020] NSWDC 471
- Case
- [2020] NSWDC 471
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues the court had to address were whether the defendants were negligent in their professional capacity and, if so, the extent of their liability. Additionally, the court had to determine the applicability of the doctrine of issue estoppel, particularly regarding decisions made by the defendants. The court also needed to assess the potential immunity of the defendants as advocates. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants' actions constituted professional negligence, while the defendants maintained that they were not liable for the plaintiffs' losses.
The court found that the defendants were indeed negligent in their professional capacity. The court held that the defendants' failure to properly advise and represent the plaintiffs in their business dealings resulted in the plaintiffs' financial loss. The court also determined that the doctrine of issue estoppel applied to certain decisions made by the defendants, which precluded them from relitigating those issues. However, the court found that the defendants were not entitled to advocate’s immunity in this context, as their actions went beyond the scope of their professional duties as advocates. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, awarding them damages in the sum of $165,693.65 against the first defendant. The second defendant was found not liable to the plaintiffs. The proceedings against the third defendant were dismissed.
The court's final orders included a judgment in favour of the first and second plaintiffs against the first defendant for the specified amount. The second defendant was found not liable to the plaintiffs. The proceedings by the third plaintiff were dismissed, and no liability was imposed on the third defendant. This outcome reflects the court's determination of the defendants' professional negligence and the application of relevant legal principles, including issue estoppel and advocate’s immunity.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Judgment in favour of the first plaintiff, Mr Alam, and second plaintiff, Mrs Saqiba Sattar, against the first defendant in the sum of $165,693.65.
(2) Judgment for the second defendant against the plaintiffs.
(3) Proceedings by the third plaintiff, Mrs Qamar Sattar, dismissed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.