Giuca v Coadys (a firm) - [2000] VSC 230

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COMMON LAW DIVISION	Not Restricted

No. 7280 of 1998

GIOVANNI GIUCA and CARMELLA GIUCA	Plaintiffs
v
COADYS (a firm)	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Gillard J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	5, 8-11, 15, 17, 25-26 and 29 May 2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	7 June 2000
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Giuca v Coadys
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSC 230

---

Negligence alleged against solicitor in the handling of a County Court proceeding – Action compromised – Alleged failure to obtain evidence and undue pressure to settle – No evidence of negligence – No evidence of lost opportunity – No damage suffered. Proof of lost opportunity – Proceeding dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr R.G. Squirrell	Felthams
For the Defendant	Mr P. Cawthorn	Deacons Graham and James

HIS HONOUR:

This is a proceeding in which the plaintiffs are suing a firm of solicitors for damages for alleged negligence in the prosecution and settlement of a County Court proceeding.

Parties

Mr Giovanni and Mrs Carmella Giuca ("the plaintiffs") are a retired couple residing in Maroopna which is near Shepparton in this State.

They are Italians by birth who have resided in this country in excess of 31 years. Mr Giuca's understanding of and the speaking of English could be only described as passable and on occasions it was clear that he failed to comprehend and express himself clearly. Mrs. Giuca did not give evidence but the evidence demonstrated that her understanding of and speaking English was no better than her husband's.

In 1969 they purchased an existing tobacco farm in the King Valley near Myrtleford. The farm comprised 58 acres of which about 20 acres were used for tobacco farming.

They farmed the property growing tobacco until November 1988 when they were evicted because of their inability to pay their debt to a mortgagee.

The defendant, Coadys, (a firm) ("Coadys"), is a firm of solicitors providing a range of legal services.

They were retained by the plaintiffs to prosecute a County Court proceeding in January 1993 when the firm took over another firm from Shepparton which at that stage was conducted by Mr Ross McLinden. Mr McLinden was employed by Coadys from about January 1993 to December 1994 during which time he handled the Giuca matter. From December 1994 an employee solicitor of Coadys, Mr David Andrew, handled the file. He was appointed a partner on 1^st July 1995.

Basic facts

The growing of tobacco involves the preparation of the soil in October followed by sowing the crop and ultimately harvesting in late January/February to April the following year. Like most crops it is necessary to guard against the onset of disease by the application of chemicals. It is necessary to prepare the ground for sowing and an important ingredient is the application of fertiliser. The land is prepared in September-October, the plants are planted in October-November, harvesting commences in January and runs through to April. The leaves are progressively picked when they reach…

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 Giuca v Coadys (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: [2000] VSC 230
Decision Date: 7 June 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Giuca v Coadys (a firm), the plaintiff alleged that the defendant solicitors were negligent in their handling of a County Court proceeding, leading to an alleged failure to obtain evidence and undue pressure to settle. The case was before the court which was required to determine whether the solicitors' actions constituted negligence and if the plaintiff suffered any damages as a result. The court had to consider whether there was a breach of duty on the part of the solicitors and if such breach resulted in any lost opportunity for the plaintiff.

The court examined the evidence and concluded that there was no proof of negligence on the part of the solicitors. Furthermore, the court found that there was no evidence of a lost opportunity for the plaintiff. The court reasoned that the plaintiff had not demonstrated how the alleged failure to obtain evidence or the alleged undue pressure to settle resulted in any tangible harm or loss. The court held that the plaintiff had not proven that they suffered any damage due to the solicitors' conduct. Consequently, the court dismissed the proceeding against the solicitors.

The court ruled in favour of the defendant solicitors, stating that there was no evidence of negligence or lost opportunity. The court held that the plaintiff had not proven any damage suffered due to the alleged actions of the solicitors. As a result, the proceeding was dismissed, and no liability was found against the defendant solicitors. The final order of the court was that the plaintiff's claim against the solicitors was dismissed in its entirety, with no costs awarded.

Orders