Tobin v Dodd

Case [2004] WASCA 288


TOBIN -v- DODD & ORS [2004] WASCA 288



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2004] WASCA 288
THE FULL COURT (WA)
Case No:FUL:85/20033 JUNE 2004
Coram:MURRAY J
EM HEENAN J
LE MIERE J
3/12/04
33Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Leave to appeal granted if that be necessary
Appeal allowed
Leave granted to amend statement of claim as sought
Refer action to a Registrar for case management
A
PDF Version
Parties:GRAEME WILLIAM TOBIN
BRUCE STEVENSON DODD
ROBERT JAMES AINSLIE
IAN MICHAEL LISHMAN
BRAHMANANDA DHARMANANDA

Catchwords:

Appeal
Pleadings
Appeal from decision to dismiss action for disclosing no reasonable cause of action
Final or interlocutory decision
Duty by solicitor to client
Tort or contract
Retainer of solicitors
Duty to persons other than party who personally engages solicitors
Standing to sue for damages
Financial loss
Distress and illness
Whether damages essential to cause of action
Sufficiency of facts alleged in statement of claim
No need to plead law
Litigant in person
Action against partnership
Some but not all members of firm joined as defendants
Significance of partners joint liabilities
Partnership Act s 16

Legislation:

Partnership Act (1895), s 16, s 28
Supreme Court Act (1935), s 60(1)(f)

Case References:

AG v Pontypridd Water Works Co [1908] 1 Ch 388
Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Ltd (2002) 211 CLR 317
Ashmore v Corporation of Lloyds [1992] 1 WLR 446
Australian Communications Exchange Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2003] HCA 53; (2003) 77 ALJR 1806
Baltic Shipping Co v Dillon (1993) 176 CLR 344
Dai v Telstra Corporation Ltd (2000) 171 ALR 348
Decor Corp Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397
Dousi v Colgate Palmolive Pty Ltd (1987) 9 NSWLR 374
Ex parte Bucknell (1936) 56 CLR 221
Florida Investments Pty Ltd v Milstern (Holdings) Pty Ltd [1972] WAR 148
Fullarton v North Melbourne Electric Tramway & Lighting Co Ltd (1916) 21 CLR 181
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125
Harris v Beauchamp Bros [1893] 2 QB 534
Hill (t/as R F Hill & Associates) v Van Erp (1997) 188 CLR 159
Hunt v Allied Bakeries Ltd [1956] 1 WLR 1326
Jacobson & Ors v Ross & Anor [1995] 1 VR 337
Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Ltd (2000) 104 FCR 564
Karsales (Harrow) Ltd v Wallis [1956] 1 WLR 936
Kendall v Hamilton (1879) 4 App Cas 504
Lever Brothers Ltd v Bell [1931] 1 KB 557
Little v The State of Victoria (1998) 4 VR 596
Luna Park (NSW) Ltd v Tramways Advertising Pty Ltd (1938) 61 CLR 286
MacPherson & Kelley v Kevin J Prunty & Associates [1983] VR 573
Minogue v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1999) 166 ALR 129
Mt Isa Mines Ltd v Pusey (1970) 125 CLR 383
Nocton v Lord Ashburton [1914] AC 932
Norbury, Natzia & Co Ltd v Griffiths [1918] 2 KB 369
Pancontinental Mining Ltd…

Continue reading Tobin v Dodd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Tobin v Dodd [2004] WASCA 288
Case
[2004] WASCA 288
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Tobin v Dodd involved an appeal against a decision to dismiss an action brought by the plaintiff, Tobin, against the defendants, Dodd and his firm of solicitors. Tobin claimed damages for alleged professional negligence by the defendants, which resulted in financial loss and personal distress and illness. The trial judge dismissed the action on the basis that the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action. The plaintiff appealed to the higher court, seeking to overturn the dismissal and to be allowed to amend the statement of claim.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the dismissal of the action was appropriate, and if so, whether the court should permit an amendment to the statement of claim. The court had to determine the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the statement of claim and whether they disclosed a reasonable cause of action. The court also needed to consider the nature of the duty owed by the solicitors to the plaintiff, whether it was a tort or contractual obligation, and whether the plaintiff had standing to sue for damages. Furthermore, the court examined the significance of joining some but not all members of the firm as defendants and the implications of this under the Partnership Act.

The court held that the trial judge's decision to dismiss the action was erroneous. It found that the statement of claim, while not perfect, did disclose a reasonable cause of action. The court emphasised that the plaintiff was not required to plead the law in the statement of claim. It also noted that the plaintiff, as a litigant in person, had standing to sue for damages. The court allowed the appeal and granted leave to amend the statement of claim as sought by the plaintiff. Additionally, the court directed that the action be referred to a Registrar for case management to ensure that the proceedings progressed efficiently and effectively.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal granted if that be necessary

Appeal allowed

Leave granted to amend statement of claim as sought

Refer action to a Registrar for case management

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.