Legal Research
Cases
Attwells v White

Attwells v White

Case [2023] NSWSC 314 31 March 2023

Negligence

Duty of Care

Causation

Professional Negligence

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Attwells v White [2023] NSWSC 314
Hearing dates: 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 November 2021, 14 and 25 February 2022 and 10 and 29 March 2022
Date of orders: 31 March 2023
Decision date: 31 March 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Lonergan J
Decision:
(1) The notice of motion filed by the plaintiff on 9 February 2022 is dismissed with costs.
(2) Verdict for the first and second defendants.
(3) The plaintiff is to pay the defendants’ costs of the proceedings.
(4) Any alternative costs order to be sought is to be the subject of affidavit evidence and written submissions to be filed and served on or before 28 April 2023.
(5) Submissions and affidavits in response to any alternative costs order are to be filed and served on or before 19 May 2023.
(6) The proceedings are listed for directions at 9:00am on Tuesday 23 May 2023.

Catchwords:
NEGLIGENCE — Breach — Duty of care — Professional Negligence — Lawyer and client — advice as to prospects of success – no negligence – no causally relevant loss – claim fails

Legislation Cited:
Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Sch 2 Australian Consumer Law (NSW)
Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW)
Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Adeels Palace Pty Limited v Moubarek (2009) 239 CLR 420; [2009] HCA 48
Attwells v Jackson Lalic Lawyers Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 1510
Attwells v Jackson Lalic Lawyers Pty Limited (2016) 259 CLR 1; [2016] HCA 16
Attwells v Marsden [2011] NSWSC 38
Attwells v White (No. 2) [2021] NSWSC 1520
Attwells v White (No. 3) [2021] NSWSC 1569
Avopiling Pty Ltd v Boevski (2018) 98 NSWLR 171; [2018] NSWCA 146
Boland v Yates Property Corporation Pty Limited (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 64
Caltex Refineries (Qld) Pty Limited v Stavar (2009) 75 NSWLR 649; [2009] NSWCA 258
De Giorgio v Dunn (No 2) (2005) 62 NSWLR 284; [2005] NSWSC 3
Donnellan v Woodland [2012] NSWCA 433
Heydon v NRMA Ltd (2000) 51 NSWLR 1; [2000] NSWCA 374
Jackson Lalic Lawyers Pty Limited v Attwells [2014] NSWCA 335
March v Stramare (E & MH) Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506; [1991] HCA 12.
Newell; Muriniti v De Costi (2018) 97 NSWLR 398; [2018] NSWCA 49
Potts v Miller (1940) 64 CLR 282; [1940] HCA 43
Rosenberg v Percival (2001) 205 CLR 434; [2001] HCA 18
Travel Compensation Fund v Tambree (2005) 224 CLR 627; [2005] HCA 69
Wallace v Kam (2013) 250 CLR 375; [2013] HCA 19
Woodland v Donnellan [2011] NSWSC 777
United Church in Australia Property Trust NSW v Miller (2015) 91 NSWLR 752; [2015] NSWCA 320
Urban Transport Authority of NSW v Nweiser (1992) 28 NSWLR 471

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Noel Bruce Attwells (Plaintiff)

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.

Continue reading Attwells v White

Details

AGLC: Attwells v White [2023] NSWSC 314
Case: [2023] NSWSC 314
Decision Date: 31 March 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Attwells v White, the plaintiff, Attwells, brought an action against White, his former lawyer, alleging professional negligence. The plaintiff claimed that White failed to properly advise him on the prospects of success of his case, leading to an adverse outcome. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary legal issue before the court was whether White breached his duty of care by providing inadequate advice regarding the potential success of Attwells' case, and if such a breach caused the plaintiff's loss.

The court examined whether White owed a duty of care to Attwells and if this duty was breached by the advice given. It considered the standard of care expected from a lawyer in providing advice on the prospects of success, and whether the advice fell below this standard. Furthermore, the court assessed whether the plaintiff's loss was causally linked to the alleged negligent advice. The court concluded that White did not breach his duty of care by providing advice on the prospects of success, as the advice given was reasonable and met the standard expected of a competent lawyer. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiff's loss was not causally related to the advice provided, as the outcome of the case was largely influenced by other factors unrelated to the advice. Consequently, the claim for professional negligence was dismissed.

The court held that White did not owe a duty of care to Attwells that was breached, and there was no causally relevant loss resulting from the advice given. The plaintiff's claim for professional negligence failed, and the court dismissed the action. The final orders of the court included that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the proceeding.

Orders