Martin v Cohen

The case of Martin v Cohen involved a claim for professional negligence against a legal practitioner by a former client. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, who had provided legal services, had breached his duty of care and fiduciary duty during the course of advocacy in Supreme Court proceedings. The plaintiff claimed losses as a result of these alleged breaches.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the defendant had coerced the plaintiff into settling the underlying Supreme Court proceedings, breached his fiduciary duty, and breached his duty of care concerning advice and implementation of instructions. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the advocate's immunity was established and whether causation of the claimed losses was proven. The court needed to assess the quantum of damages claimed by the plaintiff.

The court found that the defendant had not coerced the plaintiff into settling the Supreme Court proceedings and had not breached his fiduciary duty or duty of care. The court determined that the advocate's immunity applied, and the causation of the claimed losses was not established. Consequently, the court entered a verdict and judgment in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs on the ordinary basis unless otherwise ordered. The exhibits were to be returned after the time for an appeal had expired, and the plaintiff was granted liberty to apply for further orders if needed.