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.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Civil Litigation & Procedure

  • Equity

  • Contract Law

Legal Concepts

  • Strike Out

  • Restitution

  • Fiduciary Duty

  • Admissibility of Evidence