Hancock v Arnold; Dodd v Arnold

[2008] NSWCA 254

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

CITATION:
HANCOCK v ARNOLD; DODD v ARNOLD [2008] NSWCA 254

FILE NUMBER(S):
40619/07;
40639/07

HEARING DATE(S):
17 July 2008

JUDGMENT DATE:
15 October 2008

PARTIES:
In matter No. CA 40619/07:
Ken Hancock – First Appellant
John Hill – Second Appellant
Jason Arnold – First Respondent
John William Dodd – Second Respondent
In matter No. CA 40639/07:
John William Dodd – Appellant
Jason Arnold – First Respondent
Ken Hancock and John Hill – Second Respondents

JUDGMENT OF:
Ipp JA McColl JA Basten JA   

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 20397/02

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Hulme J

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION:
24 March 2006; 8 September 2006; 28 June 2007; 13 September 2007

LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:
Arnold v Hancock [2006] NSWSC 156;
Arnold v Hancock (Damages 2) [2007] NSWSC 659

COUNSEL:
In matter No. 40619/07:
G Watson/J Sheller –Appellants
C S Leahy/T Boyd – First Respondent
M Windsor – Second Respondent

In matter No. 40639/07:M Windsor – Appellant
G Watson/J Sheller –Respondents

SOLICITORS:
In matter No. 40619/07:
Ebsworth & Ebsworth –Appellants
Herbert Weller – First Respondent
Minter Ellison – Second Respondent

In matter No. 40639/07:
Minter Ellison – Appellant
Ebsworth & Ebsworth – First and Second Respondents

CATCHWORDS:
DAMAGES – differences between common law damages claim and workers’ compensation claim – whether common law damages claim more beneficial for plaintiff – [<i>Motor Accidents Act</i>] 1988 (NSW) ss 43, 43A – [<i>Workers Compensation Act</i>] 1987 (NSW) s 151A
LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – whether breach of duty of care to client by solicitor and barrister – failure to advise about common law damages claim under the [<i>Motor Accidents Act</i>] 1988 (NSW) – where advice given about workers’ compensation claim and where claim settled – where plaintiff lost interest in pursuing damages claim – whether solicitor and barrister gave adequate advice about superannuation, future out-of-pocket expenses and future economic loss – whether failure to advise caused loss to plaintiff – whether implied term in retainer to give definitive advice by specific date – obligation to provide timely advice – [<i>Motor Accidents Act</i>] 1988 (NSW) ss 43, 43A – [<i>Workers Compensation Act</i>] 1987 (NSW) s 151A
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – motor vehicle accident – differences between workers’ compensation claim and common law damages claim – [<i>Motor Accidents Act</i>] 1988 (NSW) ss 43, 43A – [<i>Workers Compensation Act</i>] 1987 (NSW) s 151A

LEGISLATION CITED:
[<i>Motor Accidents Act</i>] 1988 (NSW), ss 43, 43A; Part 6
[<i>Workers Compensation Act</i>] 1987 (NSW), s 151A

CATEGORY:
Principal judgment

CASES CITED:
[<i>Astley v Austrust Ltd</i>] [1999] HCA 6; 197 CLR 1
[<i>BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings</i>] (1977) 180 CLR 266
[<i>Chamberlain v Ormsby t/as Ormsby Flower</i>] [2005] NSWCA 454
[<i>Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority (NSW)</i>] [1982] HCA 24; 149 CLR 337
[<i>Hick v Raymond & Reid</i>] [1893] AC 22
[<i>Rosenberg v Percival</i>] [2001] HCA 18; 205 CLR 434
[<i>Schmidt v Townsends</i>] [2000] SASC 363
[<i>Winnote Pty Ltd v Page</i>] [2006]…