Legal Research
Cases
Lawson v Gillis

Lawson v Gillis

Case [2022] NSWSC 185 25 March 2022

Professional Negligence

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lawson v Gillis and Ors [2022] NSWSC 185
Hearing dates: 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22 August 2019; 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 November 2019; 23 May 2020 (further written submissions)
Date of orders: 25 March 2022
Decision date: 25 March 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Campbell J
Decision:
(1) Judgment for each defendant as against the plaintiff.
(2) The plaintiff to pay the defendants costs.
(3) Liberty to apply on short notice.

Catchwords:
TORTS – professional negligence – legal advice relating to accepting or rejecting offers to compromise proceedings for recovery of employee entitlements and damages – advice to bring proceedings involving fraud and related issues – plaintiffs ultimately successful at trial on limited issues – judgment entered less than offers made – adverse costs orders where fraud claims unfounded – whether advice accorded with standard of reasonable care – quantum of loss – loss of opportunity

Legislation Cited:
Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), ss 5D, 5E
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), r 25.01
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s 52

Cases Cited:
Berry v British Transport Commission [1962] 1 QB 306
Donnellan v Woodland [2012] NSWCA 433
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22
Giannarelli v Wraith (1988) 165 CLR 543; [1988] HCA 52
Kendirjian v Lepore (2017) 259 CLR 275; [2017] HCA 13
Lavars v Gillis and Ors [2022] NSWSC 13
Maitland Hospital v Fisher [No 2] (1992) 27 NSWLR 721
Moore v Gillis & Ors [2022] NSWSC 14
Murphy v Gillis & Ors [2022] NSWSC 184
Murphy v Westpac Banking Corporation [2014] FCA 1104
Murphy v Westpac Banking Corporation (No 2) [2015] FCA 266
Sellars v Adelaide Petroleum NL (1994) 179 CLR 332; [1994] HCA 4
Studer v Boettcher [2000] NSWCA 263
Westpac Banking Corporation v Wittenberg (2016) 242 FCR 505; [2016] FCAFC 33

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: William Lawson (Plaintiff)
Michael Joseph Gillis (First Defendant)
Gana Holdings Pty Ltd (Second Defendant)
Gana Holdings Pty Ltd as trustee for Gana Holdings Trust trading as Gillis Delaney Lawyers (Third Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
V Gray with Mr J Raftery (Plaintiff)
L Gyles SC with A Cameron (Defendants)
Solicitors:
Somerset Ryckmans Lawson (Plaintiff)
Kennedys (Defendants)

File Number(s): 2017/370856
Publication restriction: Nil

decision

Mr Lawson’s claim for damages against the defendant legal practice (“the legal practice”) is one of the five related matters heard together by me of which I first gave judgment in the claim brought by Ms Lavars (Lavars v Gillis and Ors [2022] NSWSC 13 (“principal judgment”)). Evidence in one case stood as evidence in the others. Like the other plaintiffs, the basis of Mr Lawson’s claim for damages from the legal practice is its alleged negligence in providing legal advice relating to the settlement of proceedings brought separately in the Federal Court of Australia for the recovery of employment benefits due on termination of employment and in Mr Lawson’s case…

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.

Continue reading Lawson v Gillis

Details

AGLC: Lawson v Gillis [2022] NSWSC 185
Case: [2022] NSWSC 185
Decision Date: 25 March 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiffs, Lawson and Gillis, brought an action against their former legal practitioners, seeking damages for professional negligence in the provision of legal advice. The advice related to the acceptance or rejection of offers to compromise proceedings concerning the recovery of employee entitlements and damages. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiffs were ultimately successful at trial, but only on limited issues, and the judgment entered was less than the offers made. Furthermore, adverse costs orders were made where the fraud claims were unfounded.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the advice provided by the defendants met the standard of reasonable care and skill expected of legal practitioners, and if so, what the quantum of loss was. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants' advice was negligent, leading them to reject settlement offers and incur additional costs. They claimed that the advice was below the standard of reasonable care, resulting in a loss of opportunity to settle the matter more favourably. The defendants contended that the advice was reasonable and that any losses incurred were not a result of the advice given.

The court found that the advice given by the defendants was in accordance with the standard of reasonable care and skill expected of legal practitioners. It held that the defendants had exercised the necessary degree of care and skill in providing advice on the settlement offers and the decision to bring proceedings involving fraud and related issues. The court further held that the plaintiffs' losses, including the loss of opportunity, were not a direct result of the defendants' advice but rather the outcome of the litigation itself. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, finding that the defendants were not liable for professional negligence. The court also noted that the adverse costs orders were a consequence of the litigation strategy and not the result of the defendants' advice.

The final orders of the court were that the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants were dismissed, and each party was to bear their own costs of the proceeding. The court found no basis for holding that the defendants were liable for professional negligence in their advice to the plaintiffs. The court further held that the plaintiffs' losses were not a direct result of the defendants' advice and therefore could not be recovered as damages in this action.

Orders