Rigg v Sheridan

In *Rigg v Sheridan*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered a dispute concerning a solicitor's alleged breach of fiduciary duty. The appellant, Mr. Rigg, had engaged the respondent, Mr. Sheridan, a solicitor, to act on his behalf in a property transaction. Mr. Rigg alleged that Mr. Sheridan had failed to disclose material facts and had acted in circumstances giving rise to a conflict of duties, thereby breaching his fiduciary obligations.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether there was a "real sensible possibility" of conflict between Mr. Sheridan's duties to Mr. Rigg and any other duties he might have owed, and whether the fact that a reduced risk of legal challenge was a material fact that ought to have been disclosed to Mr. Rigg. The court also considered whether causation was relevant to the determination of a breach of fiduciary duty in this context.

The Court of Appeal, in dismissing the appeal, applied established principles regarding a solicitor's fiduciary duties. It was held that a solicitor owes a duty to their client to avoid a conflict of interest, and this duty is engaged if there is a "real sensible possibility" of such a conflict arising. The court found that the facts did not establish such a possibility in this instance. Furthermore, the court determined that the materiality of a fact for disclosure purposes is assessed by whether it would influence the client's decision-making. The court concluded that the alleged material fact, relating to a reduced risk of legal challenge, was not material in the circumstances. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs.