Stefanovich v Curran

This matter concerns an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia. The applicant, Mr Stefanovich, sought to appeal a decision of the Court of Appeal. The underlying dispute involved an action for negligence brought by Mr Stefanovich against his solicitor, Mr Curran, and others. The central issue was that the statement of claim in the negligence action had been lodged out of time.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the Court of Appeal had erred in its determination of when the cause of action for negligence arose. Specifically, the applicant argued that the Court of Appeal had based its decision on the premise that damage arose from the incurring of solicitor and client costs on a particular date, which the applicant contended did not constitute legal damage. The applicant sought to demonstrate that the Court of Appeal had dismissed, arguably peremptorily, a long-standing legal principle established in cases such as *Wiffen v Bailey and Romford Urban Council*, which held that the difference between solicitor and client costs and party and party costs is not legal damage.

The applicant's counsel argued that the Court of Appeal's decision was founded on a flawed premise regarding the nature of legal damage. He contended that the Court of Appeal had placed significant emphasis on the date of an adjournment in common law proceedings as the point at which damage was suffered, specifically the incurring of solicitor and client costs. The applicant maintained that this was contrary to established authority and that there were other, later dates on which the cause of action could have arisen, which would have been within the relevant time limits. The applicant also suggested that the Court of Appeal may not have been fully apprised of all relevant authorities when reaching its decision.