Fortune v Bevan

Fortune was the appellant, and Bevan, a solicitor, was the respondent. The dispute arose out of an alleged failure by the respondent to warn the appellant of the statute of limitations in relation to a personal injury claim against a former employer. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal of Queensland. The appellant sought damages for the respondent's alleged failure to properly advise on the limitation period for a personal injury claim following a preliminary consultation. The primary issues for the court to decide were whether the respondent was liable for breach of contract and duty of care, and whether a lower standard of care was applicable under the Queensland Law Society’s $20/20 scheme. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether a general retainer existed, and if so, how it limited the respondent’s duty to the appellant.

The court found that the respondent did not owe the appellant a duty of care or breach a contractual obligation as there was no general retainer. The court held that the respondent’s duty was confined to providing advice on the prospects of the claim, not on the legal intricacies such as the statute of limitations. The court also ruled that the $20/20 scheme did not impose a lower standard of care. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the trial court was upheld.

No further orders were made beyond the dismissal of the appeal. The court found that the respondent's obligations were limited to providing advice on the merits of the claim, and did not extend to confirming legal principles such as limitation periods. The court also clarified that the $20/20 scheme did not alter the standard of care owed by the respondent to the appellant. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the lower court's decision was affirmed.