Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Keddie & Ors v Stacks/Goudkamp Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 254 Hearing dates: 10 February and 12 April 2012 Decision date: 17 August 2012 Before: Beazley JA at [1];
Barrett JA at [197];
Sackville AJA at [198]Decision: 1. Appeal dismissed;
2. Cross-appeal allowed;
3. Set aside order (2) made by the trial judge;
4. Order that the appellants pay the respondent's costs of the notice of motion, those costs to be on an indemnity basis as and from 4 August 2010;
5. Order that the appellants pay the respondent's costs of the appeal and the cross-appeal.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
Catchwords: COSTS - Costs order against law practice - Whether professional negligence claim had reasonable prospects of success - Whether solicitor entitled to rely on expert opinion and counsel advice - Solicitor must turn an independent mind to the matter - Legal Profession Act 2004, ss 345 and 348
COSTS - Costs order against legal practitioner - Unnecessary costs - Costs incurred without reasonable cause in circumstances where legal practitioner responsible for costs unnecessarily incurred - Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 99
LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Provision of legal services - Requirement to have reasonable belief in reasonable prospects of success - Reliance on counsel's advices - Reliance on expert's reports - Expert's reports wrong
TORTS - Negligence - Solicitor's duty of care - Solicitor retained to advise on nervous shock claim - Whether solicitor under obligation to take additional or positive step - Whether solicitor owed duty to obtain psychiatric evidence - Solicitor settled claim pursuant to client's instructions - Solicitor entitled to follow instructions of client - No evidence of client's mental or emotional incapacity to give instructions
WORDS AND PHRASES - "without reasonable prospects of success"Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002
Civil Procedure Act 2005
Legal Profession Act 2004
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999
Revised Professional Conduct and Practice Rules 1995
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005Cases Cited: Astley v Austrust Ltd [1999] HCA 6; 197 CLR 1
Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333; [1975] 3 WLR 586
Curnuck v Nitschke [2001] NSWCA 176
David v David [2009] NSWCA 8
Degiorgio v Dunn (No 2) [2005] NSWSC 3; 62 NSWLR 284
Dominic v Riz [2009] NSWCA 216
Elite Protective Personnel Pty Ltd v Salmon [2007] NSWCA 322
Fowler v Toro Constructions Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 178
Hawkins v Clayton [1988] HCA 15; (1988) 164 CLR 539
Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1995] 2 AC 145
Heydon v NRMA [2000] NSWCA 374; 51 NSWLR 1
House v…
Continue reading Keddie v Stacks/Goudkamp Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Keddie v Stacks/Goudkamp Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 254
- Case
- [2012] NSWCA 254
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether Stacks/Goudkamp had acted negligently in advising Ms Keddie and settling her nervous shock claim. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the law practice was obliged to take additional steps, such as obtaining psychiatric evidence, beyond relying on the advice of counsel and expert reports, and whether the expert reports were demonstrably wrong. The court also considered whether Ms Keddie was mentally or emotionally incapacitated at the time she gave instructions to settle her claim.
The court reasoned that a solicitor is entitled to rely on the advice of counsel and expert reports, provided they have applied their independent mind to the matter. In this instance, the expert reports were not shown to be wrong, and there was no evidence that Ms Keddie lacked the capacity to give instructions. Therefore, Stacks/Goudkamp was entitled to follow its client's instructions to settle the claim. The court found that the claim did not lack reasonable prospects of success, and thus the costs order against the law practice was set aside.
The appeal was dismissed, and the cross-appeal was allowed. The order made by the trial judge for the appellants to pay the respondent's costs of the notice of motion on an indemnity basis was set aside. However, the appellants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal and the cross-appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal dismissed;
2. Cross-appeal allowed;
3. Set aside order (2) made by the trial judge;
4. Order that the appellants pay the respondent's costs of the notice of motion, those costs to be on an indemnity basis as and from 4 August 2010;
5. Order that the appellants pay the respondent's costs of the appeal and the cross-appeal.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
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.