Trajkovski v Simpson
Case
•
[2019] NSWCA 52
•26 March 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Trajkovski v Simpson [2019] NSWCA 52
[2019] NSWCA 52
26 March 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal in *Trajkovski v Simpson* concerned a claim of professional negligence brought by the plaintiff, Ms. Trajkovski, against the defendant solicitors. The dispute arose from the sale of a jointly owned property during family law proceedings between Ms. Trajkovski and her husband. The solicitors had been retained by the husband to act on the sale of the property, and Ms. Trajkovski alleged that the solicitors owed her a duty of care, either directly or through agency, in relation to the handling of the sale proceeds. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether a solicitor-client relationship existed between the defendant solicitors and Ms. Trajkovski, thereby imposing a duty of care upon them towards her. Additionally, the court was required to determine whether Ms. Trajkovski had conferred actual or ostensible authority upon her husband to direct the payment of the proceeds of the property sale to the solicitors. Finally, the court considered whether the husband should be treated as a concurrent wrongdoer, which could potentially reduce the solicitors' liability.
The Court of Appeal found that the solicitors did owe a duty of care to Ms. Trajkovski. The court reasoned that the solicitors, by undertaking the sale of jointly owned property in circumstances where they were aware of the ongoing family law dispute and the wife's interest in the property, had created a relationship of proximity with Ms. Trajkovski. This proximity gave rise to a duty to take reasonable care to avoid causing her loss. The court also determined that the husband did not have actual or ostensible authority to direct the payment of the sale proceeds in the manner that occurred. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the judgment of the trial judge was set aside, and judgment was entered for the plaintiff against the defendants for $814,445.25, with the respondents ordered to pay the appellant's costs at first instance and on appeal.
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether a solicitor-client relationship existed between the defendant solicitors and Ms. Trajkovski, thereby imposing a duty of care upon them towards her. Additionally, the court was required to determine whether Ms. Trajkovski had conferred actual or ostensible authority upon her husband to direct the payment of the proceeds of the property sale to the solicitors. Finally, the court considered whether the husband should be treated as a concurrent wrongdoer, which could potentially reduce the solicitors' liability.
The Court of Appeal found that the solicitors did owe a duty of care to Ms. Trajkovski. The court reasoned that the solicitors, by undertaking the sale of jointly owned property in circumstances where they were aware of the ongoing family law dispute and the wife's interest in the property, had created a relationship of proximity with Ms. Trajkovski. This proximity gave rise to a duty to take reasonable care to avoid causing her loss. The court also determined that the husband did not have actual or ostensible authority to direct the payment of the sale proceeds in the manner that occurred. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the judgment of the trial judge was set aside, and judgment was entered for the plaintiff against the defendants for $814,445.25, with the respondents ordered to pay the appellant's costs at first instance and on appeal.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Negligence & Tort
-
Equity & Trusts
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Duty of Care
-
Negligence
-
Fiduciary Duty
-
Appeal
-
Costs
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Trajkovski v Simpson [2019] NSWCA 52
Most Recent Citation
TC (Tallwoods) Pty Limited v Camden Council [2021] NSWLEC 1212
Cases Citing This Decision
11
Woodhouse v Fitzgerald
[2021] NSWCA 54
Liprini v Hale
[2020] NSWCA 130
Salmon v Albarran
[2023] NSWSC 1238
Cases Cited
22
Statutory Material Cited
8
Shrimp v Landmark Operations Ltd
[2007] FCA 1468
Meandarra Aerial Spraying Pty Ltd v Gej & MA Geldard PTY LTD
[2012] QCA 315
Shrimp v Landmark Operations Ltd
[2007] FCA 1468