Coshott v Barry

The plaintiff, Mr Coshott, brought a claim against the defendant, Mr Barry, a solicitor, for professional negligence. The dispute centred around the defendant's failure to advise the plaintiff about a legal matter, which resulted in the plaintiff suffering a loss. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's negligence in omitting to provide certain advice led to the plaintiff's financial loss. The defendant, in turn, argued that the plaintiff would not have followed the advice had it been given, thereby negating any potential negligence on the part of the defendant.

The central legal issues that the court had to determine were whether the defendant's omission constituted professional negligence and, if so, whether the plaintiff would have acted on the advice if it had been provided. The court was required to assess the standard of care expected of a solicitor in such circumstances and to evaluate the causal link between the defendant's failure to advise and the plaintiff's loss. The court also had to consider the principle of advocate's immunity, which generally protects legal practitioners from liability for the consequences of advice given in the course of advocacy.

The court found that the defendant did owe a duty of care to the plaintiff and that this duty was breached by the omission to advise. However, the court held that the plaintiff would not have acted on the advice if it had been given, which was a significant factor in determining the outcome. As a result, the court ruled that the defendant was not liable for the plaintiff's loss. The court emphasised that the principle of advocate's immunity applied in this context, protecting the defendant from liability for the consequences of the advice that was not given. Consequently, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.