[2003] QCA 27
COURT OF APPEAL
DAVIES JA
WILLIAMS JA
CULLINANE J
Appeal No 2669 of 2002
CARMELA SERRATORE Applicant(Respondent)
And
DOYLES CONSTRUCTION LAWYERS Respondent(Appellant)
BRISBANE
..DATE 10/02/2003
JUDGMENT
MR A J H MORRIS QC (instructed by Hopgood & Ganim) for the appellant
RESPONDENT appeared on her own behalf
DAVIES JA: The appeal is dismissed with costs.
-----
Details
- AGLC
- Serratore v Doyles Construction Lawyers [2003] QCA 27
- Case
- [2003] QCA 27
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Serratore v Doyles Construction Lawyers, the applicant, Carmela Serratore, appealed against a decision of the trial judge who dismissed her claim for damages. The claim arose from a dispute in which Serratore sought to recover damages for professional negligence on the part of Doyles Construction Lawyers. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal in Queensland, with the judges being Davies JA, Williams JA, and Cullinane J.
The central legal issue before the Court was whether the trial judge erred in finding that the applicant had failed to establish a causal link between the lawyer's alleged negligence and the losses she suffered. The applicant contended that the trial judge had misapplied the test for establishing causation, while the respondent argued that the trial judge's findings were correct and that the applicant had not met the requisite burden of proof. The Court had to determine the correctness of the trial judge's application of the causation test and whether the trial judge's findings were open to the Court on the evidence presented.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's assessment of causation was not open to question, as the applicant had failed to establish the requisite causal link between the lawyer's negligence and the losses suffered. The Court held that the trial judge had applied the appropriate test for causation and that the findings of fact made by the trial judge were supported by the evidence. As a result, the Court found that the appeal should be dismissed, with the appellant to pay the costs of the respondent.
The central legal issue before the Court was whether the trial judge erred in finding that the applicant had failed to establish a causal link between the lawyer's alleged negligence and the losses she suffered. The applicant contended that the trial judge had misapplied the test for establishing causation, while the respondent argued that the trial judge's findings were correct and that the applicant had not met the requisite burden of proof. The Court had to determine the correctness of the trial judge's application of the causation test and whether the trial judge's findings were open to the Court on the evidence presented.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's assessment of causation was not open to question, as the applicant had failed to establish the requisite causal link between the lawyer's negligence and the losses suffered. The Court held that the trial judge had applied the appropriate test for causation and that the findings of fact made by the trial judge were supported by the evidence. As a result, the Court found that the appeal should be dismissed, with the appellant to pay the costs of the respondent.
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.