Holdway v Acuri [No 2]

Case [2007] QSC 378


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Holdway v Arcuri [No 2]  [2007] QSC 378

PARTIES:

MARGARET ELIZABETH HOLDWAY
(plaintiff)
v
ARCURI LAWYERS
(defendant)
MICHAEL EASTWOOD
(third party)

FILE NO:

SC No 3255 of 2004

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court

DELIVERED ON:

18 December 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21-23, 27 November 2007

JUDGE:

Fryberg J

ORDER:

Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $233,000.00

CATCHWORDS:

Professions and trades – Lawyers – Solicitor and client – Duties and liabilities – Generally – Acceptable that solicitor will rely upon competent barrister’s advice – Solicitor maintains duty to exercise reasonable care and independent judgment – Duty to be familiar with law of jurisdiction relevant to solicitor’s practice

Professions and trades – Lawyers – Solicitor and client – Duties and liabilities to client – Obligations of solicitors – Allegation of negligence – Failure to serve or give notice of application for family provision

Succession – Executors and administrators – Administration – Distribution – What constitutes

Succession – Family provision and maintenance – Valuation of lost chose in action – Assessment of prospects of success – Factors considered

Succession Act 1981 (Qld) s41, s44, s45, s52

Baker v Williams[2007] QSC 226 cited
Boland v Yates Property Corp Pty Ltd (1999) 74 ALJR 209 cited
Commissioner of Stamp Duties (Queensland) v Livingston (1964) 112 CLR 12 cited
Easterbrook v Young (1977) 136 CLR 308 distinguished
Holmes v Webb[1992] QCA 172 cited
Holt v Deputy Federal Commissioner of Land Tax, New South Wales (1914) 17 CLR 720 cited
Re Anderson [1957] NZLR 401 cited
Re Burgess [1984] 2 Qd R 379 considered
Re Donkin [1966] Qd R 96 referred to
Re Faulkner [1999] Qd R 49 cited
Re Hardgraves [1955] St R Qd 601 cited
Re Hill (Unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, Carter J, 17 June 1988) cited
Re Lago [1984] VR 706 distinguished
Re Lowe [1964] QWN 37 cited
Re McPherson [1987] 2 Qd R 394 cited
Re Terlier [1958] QWN 5 referred to
Re Whitter [1984] 2 Qd R 356 cited
Sweeney v Attwood Marshall[2003] QCA 348 followed
Wolfson v Registrar-General (NSW) (1934) 51 CLR 300 cited

COUNSEL:

Plaintiff: M Cooke QC and D Morgan
Defendant: R Derrington SC

SOLICITORS:

Plaintiff:  Phillip Roberts Lawyers
Defendant: Sparke Helmore

  1. FRYBERG J:  Mrs Margaret Holdway has sued Arcuri Lawyers for professional negligence.

The story

  1. On 18 June 2002 Mrs Holdway, consulted solicitors.  Her friend (to use a neutral term for the moment) Mr Frank Virgona, with whom she had been living, had died a fortnight earlier.  By his will he left everything to his son Frank Jr., who was appointed executor.  She wanted some of the estate.  The firm she consulted was the defendant, which had acted for the late Mr Virgona.  It held itself out as providing professional services in the area of wills and estate administration and it held out its employee, Mr Scott Pearson, as someone with experience in those fields.  There are different recollections as to whom…

Continue reading Holdway v Acuri [No 2]

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Holdway v Acuri [No 2] [2007] QSC 378
Case
[2007] QSC 378
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Holdway v Acuri [No 2], the dispute between the plaintiff, Holdway, and the defendant, Acuri, involved allegations of professional negligence against the defendant, who was the plaintiff’s former solicitor. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant's failure to serve or provide notice of an application for family provision resulted in a substantial loss, which Holdway sought to recover. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether the defendant solicitor breached their duty of care by failing to ensure that the application for family provision was served or notified to the plaintiff. The court also had to consider the extent to which a solicitor can rely on the advice of a barrister while still maintaining their duty of care and independent judgment. Additionally, the court needed to assess the value of the lost chose in action and determine the prospects of success for the plaintiff's claim.

The court held that a solicitor must exercise reasonable care and independent judgment, even when relying on a competent barrister's advice. The defendant was expected to be familiar with the law of the jurisdiction relevant to their practice and could not simply defer to the barrister's advice without verifying its accuracy. The court found that the defendant had indeed breached their duty by failing to serve or notify the plaintiff of the application for family provision. The court concluded that the plaintiff had a significant chance of succeeding in the family provision application and awarded damages of $233,000 to the plaintiff.

The final orders of the court were that judgment was entered in favour of the plaintiff, Holdway, in the sum of $233,000.00, representing the value of the lost chose in action. This amount was calculated based on the assessment of the prospects of success for the plaintiff's claim for family provision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $233,000.00

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.