Sloan v Arnold Thomas & Becker (No 2)

Sloan, the plaintiff, initiated proceedings against Arnold Thomas & Becker, the defendants, who were his former solicitors. The dispute pertains to the plaintiff's claim for breach of fiduciary duty. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendants, as the former solicitors, sought a summary judgment under Section 63 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic), arguing that the plaintiff's claim had no real prospects of success.

The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff's cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty against his former solicitors was statute-barred by analogy. Additionally, the court needed to decide if there was a valid analogy between an equitable claim and a statutory claim for the purposes of applying a limitation period by analogy. The court considered the cases of Cia de Seguros Imperio v Heath (REBX) Ltd and Ors and Port Ballidu Pty Ltd v Frews Lawyers, which provided precedents for the application of limitation periods by analogy.

The court found that the plaintiff's cause of action was indeed statute-barred by analogy, following the principles established in Cia de Seguros Imperio v Heath. The court applied the unconscionability exception to the application of limitation periods by analogy, as discussed in Gerace v Auzhair Supplies Pty Ltd. The court held that the exception was limited to unconscionable conduct which prevents a wronged party from bringing a claim within the time. The court granted the defendants' application for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiff's claim.