Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: ROBINSON v CAMPBELL [1992] NSWCA 215 Decision date: 17 September 1992
See Attachment (PDF)
Continue reading Robinson v Campbell
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Robinson v Campbell [1992] NSWCA 215
- Case
- [1992] NSWCA 215
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Robinson v Campbell*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered a dispute between the plaintiff, Robinson, and the defendant, Campbell. The case concerned an appeal against a judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the respondent, Campbell, had breached a duty of care owed to the appellant, Robinson, in relation to the provision of advice concerning a property transaction. Specifically, the court had to determine if the advice given was negligent and if that negligence caused the appellant's loss.
The Court of Appeal found that the respondent had not breached any duty of care. It reasoned that the advice provided by the respondent was reasonable in the circumstances and that the appellant had not established that the respondent's conduct fell below the standard of care expected of a reasonable person in that profession. The court applied the principles of negligence, focusing on the elements of duty, breach, and causation, and concluded that the appellant had failed to prove these elements.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the respondent, Campbell, had breached a duty of care owed to the appellant, Robinson, in relation to the provision of advice concerning a property transaction. Specifically, the court had to determine if the advice given was negligent and if that negligence caused the appellant's loss.
The Court of Appeal found that the respondent had not breached any duty of care. It reasoned that the advice provided by the respondent was reasonable in the circumstances and that the appellant had not established that the respondent's conduct fell below the standard of care expected of a reasonable person in that profession. The court applied the principles of negligence, focusing on the elements of duty, breach, and causation, and concluded that the appellant had failed to prove these elements.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.