Stillman v Rushbourne

The case of Stillman v Rushbourne was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Mr Stillman, sought damages against Mr Rushbourne, his former solicitor, for professional negligence in the conduct of a personal injury claim. Mr Stillman alleged that his solicitor had acted negligently by advising him to settle his claim for an amount significantly below its true value. The settlement was subsequently made, and a judgment was entered in accordance with the settlement terms. The primary issue before the court was whether Mr Rushbourne's advice to settle the claim fell within the scope of immunity from negligence claims that legal practitioners enjoy. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the coercion by the solicitor to accept a low settlement offer constituted conduct that could break the chain of causation required to claim damages.

The court considered the principles of legal immunity and the circumstances under which it may be applicable. The court examined whether the advice given at mediation to settle the claim was part of the work done in the conduct of the case in court. It also assessed whether the alleged coercion by Mr Rushbourne to settle for an amount lower than warranted was within the scope of the immunity. The court concluded that the advice to settle, given at a critical stage of litigation, was indeed part of the work done in the conduct of the case. However, the court held that the immunity did not extend to the coercive conduct that led to the settlement, which was outside the scope of the services provided. This conduct broke the chain of causation necessary to claim damages for the solicitor's negligence.

In light of the court's findings, Mr Rushbourne's immunity from negligence was not applicable to the coercive conduct that influenced Mr Stillman's decision to settle. The court found that Mr Rushbourne was liable for the damages caused by his coercive conduct. The final orders included a declaration that Mr Rushbourne was liable for the damages resulting from his coercive conduct in the settlement of Mr Stillman's personal injury claim. The court also ordered Mr Rushbourne to pay damages to Mr Stillman, which were quantified at a later date.