Amos v Wiltshire

[2010] QDC 138

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Amos v Wiltshire [2010] QDC 138

PARTIES:

EDWARD AMOS
(plaintiff)
v
CHRISTOPHER JAMES RAYMOND WILTSHIRE
(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

1527/09

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Claim

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

25 March 2010

DELIVERED AT:

District Court, Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 March 2010

JUDGE:

Samios DCJ

ORDER:

Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for the sum of $114,302.17 and interest on the sum of $114,302.17 at the rate of 5% per annum from 2 June 2009 to date which is a sum of $4,629.23.

CATCHWORDS:

Legal Practitioners – Barrister – Negligence – Immunity from suit – duties and liabilities.

2007 Barristers Rule

Baltic Shipping Co v Dillon (1992-3) 176 CLR 344
Coshott v Barry (2009) NSWCA 34
Dansar Pty Ltd v Pagotto (2008) NSWSC 112
D’Orta-Ekanaike v Victoria Legal Aid (2005) 223 CLR 1
Gianerelli v Wraith (1988) 165 CLR 543
Heydon v NRMA Ltd (2000) 51 NSWLR 1
March v Stramare (E&M.H) Pty Ltd (1990-1) 171 CLR 506
May v Mijatovic (2002) WASC 151
Saif Ali v Sydney Mitchell & Co (1978) 3 All ER 1033
Wentworth v Rogers No 5 (1986) 6 NSWLR 534

COUNSEL:

Mr Steele for the plaintiff.

The defendant appeared in person.

SOLICITORS:

Keller Nall and Brown for the plaintiff.

The defendant appeared in person.

INTRODUCTION

1. The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant is for damages for breach of contract or negligence on the part of the defendant as the plaintiff’s barrister.

1. The defendant who was admitted to practice as a barrister in Queensland in September 2000 was retained directly by the plaintiff in or about November and December 2007.

1. There is no dispute the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an oral agreement pursuant to which the defendant agreed to draw, settle and engross a claim and statement of claim in which the plaintiff as plaintiff sued Monsour Pty Ltd, Fred Monsour and Desley Faye Monsour as defendants (“the Monsour proceedings”).

1. The issue between the plaintiff and the defendant in these proceedings is whether the defendant was retained by the plaintiff to advise him on prospects of success of the Monsour proceedings and if in doing so, was the defendant negligent.  The defendant denies he was retained to advise the plaintiff on prospects of success of the Monsour proceedings and denies he was negligent.  He says he warned the plaintiff as to the risks associated with the Monsour proceedings.

1. The Monsour proceedings were duly commenced in this court bearing number 2 of 2008. After the Monsour proceedings were commenced the defendants in those proceedings brought an application for summary judgment against the plaintiff on the ground he had no real prospects of succeeding on his claim and there was no need for a trial of the claim. Those summary judgment proceedings were heard by Brabazon DCJ who delivered his judgment on 20 June 2008 (see (2008) QDC 336). He dismissed the plaintiff’s claim in the Monsour proceedings and ordered the plaintiff to pay indemnity costs. An appeal by the plaintiff…