Spaulding v Adams - [2013] TASFC 8

[2013] TASFC 8
COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (FULL COURT)
CITATION:              Spaulding v Adams [2013] TASFC 8
PARTIES:  SPAULDING, Michael John
  v
  ADAMS, Colin Bertram
FILE NO/S:  FCA 917/2012
JUDGMENT
APPEALED FROM:  Spaulding v Adams [2012] TASSC 61
DELIVERED ON:  1 August 2013
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  13 June 2013
JUDGMENT OF:  Wood, Estcourt and Pearce JJ
CATCHWORDS:
Equity – Equitable remedies – Equitable compensation – Breach of fiduciary obligations – Solicitor and client – Conflict of interest and breach of duty – Lack of evidence of loss as a result of breach.
Aust Dig Equity [1276]
Limitation of Actions – General matters – Statutes of limitation generally – Operations of State statutes in particular actions – Applications for equitable relief – Equitable compensation – Laches – Application of statutory limitation period by analogy.
Limitation Act 1974 (Tas), ss4, 9.
Aust Dig Limitation of Actions [1006]
Professions and Trades – Lawyers – Duties and liabilities - Solicitor and client – Fiduciary duty.
Aust Dig Professions and Trades [1154]

REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
             Appellant:  In person
             Respondent:  P Jackson
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  In person
             Respondent:  Jackson Tremayne & Fay
Judgment Number:  [2013] TASFC 8
Number of paragraphs:  51
Serial No 8/2013
File No 917/2012

MICHAEL JOHN SPAULDING v COLIN BERTRAM ADAMS
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  FULL COURT
WOOD J
ESTCOURT J
PEARCE J
1 August 2013
Orders of the Court
1      Application for special leave to admit further evidence refused.
2      Appeal dismissed.
Serial No 8/2013
File No 917/2012

MICHAEL JOHN SPAULDING v COLIN BERTRAM ADAMS
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT FULL COURT
WOOD J
1 August 2013
1 I agree that, for the reasons given by Estcourt J, the appeal should be dismissed.

2 During the hearing of the appeal the appellant sought special leave from the Court to adduce evidence that was not before the learned trial judge. The evidence may be admitted only by special leave of the Full Court, and the Court shall only grant leave in cases in which (a) the evidence was not in the possession of the party seeking to have it admitted, and could not by proper diligence have been obtained by the party before the termination of the hearing at first instance; or (b) there is some other special circumstance which, in the opinion of the Court, justifies the admission of it: Supreme Court Civil Procedure Act 1932, s48(3). Most of the evidence was available to the appellant at the time of the trial. Two of the documents were not in his possession at that time. He did not establish that, by proper diligence, those documents could not have been obtained before the trial concluded. It is understood that the appellant's position with regard to all the evidence he seeks to have adduced, is that there are special circumstances, pursuant to s48(3)(b), which justify its admission.

3 There is a category of documents involving evidence that was ruled inadmissible by the learned trial judge: correspondence to Mr D F Egan of Murdoch Clarke Cosgrove & Drake who…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Spaulding v Adams

Details

AGLC: Spaulding v Adams [2013] TASFC 8
Case: [2013] TASFC 8
Decision Date: 1 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned a dispute between a former client, Mr. Spaulding, and his former solicitor, Mr. Adams. Mr. Spaulding alleged that Mr. Adams had breached his fiduciary obligations to him by acting in a conflict of interest. The matter came before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether Mr. Adams had breached his fiduciary duty to Mr. Spaulding, and if so, whether Mr. Spaulding had suffered any loss as a result of that breach. The court was required to consider the nature of the solicitor-client relationship and the duties that arise from it, particularly in circumstances where a potential conflict of interest may exist.

The Full Court ultimately dismissed the appeal. The court found that there was insufficient evidence to establish that Mr. Spaulding had suffered any loss as a direct consequence of the alleged breach of fiduciary duty by Mr. Adams. Furthermore, the court refused an application to admit further evidence on appeal, indicating that the existing evidence did not support the client's claim for equitable compensation.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for special leave to admit further evidence refused.

2. Appeal dismissed.

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.