Legal Research
Cases
Allstate Explorations NL v Blake Dawson Waldron (A Firm)

Allstate Explorations NL v Blake Dawson Waldron (A Firm)

Link copied

Case Copied 7 May 2010 74 min read

Contents

On this page

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: ALLSTATE EXPLORATIONS NL -v- BLAKE DAWSON WALDRON (A FIRM) [2010] WASC 97

CORAM: EM HEENAN J

HEARD: 15-20, 22-25 AND 29 & 30 MARCH 2010

DELIVERED : 7 MAY 2010

FILE NO/S: CIV 2457 of 2004

BETWEEN: ALLSTATE EXPLORATIONS NL (ACN 000 679 023)
First Plaintiff
ALLSTATE PROSPECTING PTY LTD (ACN 000 809 754)
Second Plaintiff
ACN 070 164 653 PTY LTD (ACN 070 164 653)
Third Plaintiff
BEACONSFIELD GOLD NL (ACN 057 793 834)
Fourth Plaintiff
BEACONSFIELD OPERATIONS PTY LTD (ACN 009 493 583)
Fifth Plaintiff
BEACONSFIELD TASMANIA PTY LTD (ACN 004 578 750)
Sixth Plaintiff
AND
BLAKE DAWSON WALDRON (A FIRM)
Defendant

Catchwords:

Action for damages for breach of contract and professional negligence - Solicitors - Construction project - Insurance cover - Solicitors advising on insurance required for parties to planned construction mining contract - Professional indemnity insurance - Managing agent a co-insured - Risks to be insured - Availability of insurance including principal's liability extension - Interests of mine owners and manager in performance of contract - Insurable risks - Causation - Availability of liability insurance with or without extensions - Damages - Limitation of liability under statutory scheme - Limitation of actions by time

Legislation:

Choice of Law (Limitation Periods) Act 1994 (WA), s 5
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW), s 6
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), s 14
Professional Standards Act 1994 (NSW), s 29
Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 32

Result:

Claim for damages for negligence dismissed
Nominal damages for breach of contract

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff                :     Mr C L Zelestis QC and Mr J A Thomson
Second Plaintiff            :     Mr C L Zelestis QC and Mr J A Thomson
Third Plaintiff               :     Mr C L Zelestis QC and Mr J A Thomson
Fourth Plaintiff             :     Mr C L Zelestis QC and Mr J A Thomson
Fifth Plaintiff                :     Mr C L Zelestis QC and Mr J A Thomson
Sixth Plaintiff               :     Mr C L Zelestis QC and Mr J A Thomson
Defendant:     Mr C C Macaulay SC and Ms A J Golding

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff                :     Tottle Partners
Second Plaintiff            :     Tottle Partners
Third Plaintiff               :     Tottle Partners
Fourth Plaintiff             :     Tottle Partners
Fifth Plaintiff                :     Tottle Partners
Sixth Plaintiff               :     Tottle Partners
Defendant:     Jackson McDonald

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

AMEV Finance Ltd v Mercantile Mutual Insurance (Workers' Compensation) Ltd (No 2) [1988] 2 Qd R 351
Anglo‑Cyprian Trade Agencies Ltd v Paphos Wine Industries Ltd [1951] 1 All ER 873
Badat v DTZ Australia (WA) Pty Ltd [2008] WASCA 83
British Traders' Insurance Co Ltd v Monson (1964) 111 CLR 86; [1964] ALR 845
Carmody v Priestley & Morris Perth Pty Ltd [2005] WASC 120; (2005) 30 WAR 318
Commonwealth of Australia v Amman Aviation Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 54; (1991) 174 CLR 64
Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd v Jennings Industries Ltd (1996) 17 WAR 257; (1996) 9 ANZ Ins Cas 61‑355
Co‑operative

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Allstate Explorations NL v Blake Dawson Waldron (A Firm) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2010] WASC 97
Decision Date: 7 MAY 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a claim by Allstate Explorations NL against Blake Dawson Waldron (A Firm) for damages arising from alleged breaches of contract and professional negligence. The dispute centred on the legal advice provided by the firm regarding insurance requirements for a planned construction mining contract. Specifically, Allstate Explorations alleged that Blake Dawson Waldron failed to properly advise on the necessary insurance cover, particularly in relation to professional indemnity insurance and the potential for principal's liability extensions. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the firm's advice was negligent and if such negligence caused the losses claimed by Allstate Explorations.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address included the standard of care expected from the solicitors, the extent of the firm's duty to advise on insurance requirements, and whether the firm's advice led to the alleged damages. The court also had to consider the implications of the statutory scheme governing insurance and the limitations it imposed on liability and actions. A crucial aspect was determining whether the risks identified by Allstate Explorations were within the scope of insurance cover that Blake Dawson Waldron should have recommended and whether the failure to secure appropriate insurance constituted professional negligence.

In its judgment, the court found that Blake Dawson Waldron owed a duty of care to Allstate Explorations in providing legal advice regarding the insurance requirements for the construction mining contract. The court concluded that the firm did not breach this duty by failing to advise on the need for professional indemnity insurance or the availability of principal's liability extensions. The court held that the risks identified by Allstate Explorations were not within the scope of the insurance cover that the firm was obligated to recommend. Furthermore, the court determined that even if there had been a breach of duty, it did not cause the losses claimed by Allstate Explorations. The court also noted the statutory limitations on liability and actions, which further supported its finding that Blake Dawson Waldron was not liable for the damages claimed.

As a result of the court's findings, Allstate Explorations' claim against Blake Dawson Waldron was dismissed. The court ruled that the firm was not liable for the damages sought by Allstate Explorations, and no further orders were necessary beyond the dismissal of the claim.

Orders