Sturesteps v Khoury
Case
•
[2015] NSWSC 1041
•03 August 2015
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Sturesteps v Khoury [2015] NSWSC 1041
[2015] NSWSC 1041
03 August 2015
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Sturesteps was the plaintiff in an action against Khoury, a solicitor, seeking damages for professional negligence. The dispute arose from the defendant's alleged failure to properly advise the plaintiff in a legal matter. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff sought to file new pleadings in the proceeding, but the defendant objected on multiple grounds, arguing that the proposed pleadings were inadequate and should be struck out. The defendant also claimed that the plaintiff's costs agreement was invalid due to lack of disclosure.
The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff's proposed new pleadings were adequate and whether the court should grant leave to file them. The court also needed to decide if the defendant's costs agreement was valid and whether the plaintiff's claims for restitution and damages were adequately pleaded. Additionally, the court had to consider the applicability of statutory time limitations under the Contracts Review Act to the deed of agreement between the parties.
The court found that the plaintiff's proposed new pleadings were inadequate and should be struck out, as they did not sufficiently allege the necessary elements for a claim in restitution. The court held that the statutory notice provided to the plaintiff under the Legal Profession Regulations precluded the plaintiff from claiming to operate under a mistaken belief inconsistent with that notice. Furthermore, the court determined that the defendant's costs agreement was valid, as it contained the necessary disclosure. The court also found that the plaintiff's claims for professional negligence were adequately pleaded, but the claims for restitution were not. Finally, the court held that the statutory time limitations under the Contracts Review Act did not apply to the deed of agreement between the parties.
The court struck out the plaintiff's proposed new pleadings and dismissed the plaintiff's claims for restitution. The court ordered that the defendant's motion for costs be heard on an expedited basis.
The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff's proposed new pleadings were adequate and whether the court should grant leave to file them. The court also needed to decide if the defendant's costs agreement was valid and whether the plaintiff's claims for restitution and damages were adequately pleaded. Additionally, the court had to consider the applicability of statutory time limitations under the Contracts Review Act to the deed of agreement between the parties.
The court found that the plaintiff's proposed new pleadings were inadequate and should be struck out, as they did not sufficiently allege the necessary elements for a claim in restitution. The court held that the statutory notice provided to the plaintiff under the Legal Profession Regulations precluded the plaintiff from claiming to operate under a mistaken belief inconsistent with that notice. Furthermore, the court determined that the defendant's costs agreement was valid, as it contained the necessary disclosure. The court also found that the plaintiff's claims for professional negligence were adequately pleaded, but the claims for restitution were not. Finally, the court held that the statutory time limitations under the Contracts Review Act did not apply to the deed of agreement between the parties.
The court struck out the plaintiff's proposed new pleadings and dismissed the plaintiff's claims for restitution. The court ordered that the defendant's motion for costs be heard on an expedited basis.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
-
Equity
-
Contract Law
Legal Concepts
-
Strike Out
-
Restitution
-
Fiduciary Duty
-
Admissibility of Evidence
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Sturesteps v Khoury [2015] NSWSC 1041
Most Recent Citation
Australian Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v Central Park Pharmacy (Sydney) Pty Ltd; Australian Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v Lemon [2021] VSC 796
Cases Citing This Decision
6
Naro Investments Pty Ltd v Benjamin and Khoury Pty Ltd
[2021] NSWSC 262
Sturesteps v Khoury (No 3)
[2017] NSWSC 1541
Cases Cited
63
Statutory Material Cited
14
Sturesteps v McGrath
[2010] NSWSC 169
Sturesteps v A G McGrath
[2010] NSWSC 896
Sturesteps v A G McGrath
[2010] NSWSC 903