Walmsley v Cosentino

Case [2001] NSWCA 403


CITATION: WALMSLEY v COSENTINO [2001] NSWCA 403
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40715/00
HEARING DATE(S): 16 August 2001
JUDGMENT DATE:
21 November 2001

PARTIES :


Adrian Richard Walmsley (Appellant)
Antonio Cosentino (Respondent)
JUDGMENT OF: Priestley JA at 1; Powell JA at 2; Beazley JA at 61
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court
LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) :
DC 7955/94
LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :
Garling DCJ
COUNSEL: D L Davies SC (Appellant)
M J Joseph SC & M J Ward (Respondent)
SOLICITORS: Mallesons Stephen Jaques (Appellant)
Ward Maxwell & Co (Respondent)
CATCHWORDS: PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE - Contract - Tort - Limitation period - Solicitor - Instructed to act to recover damages arising out of motor vehicle accident - Failure to advise of limitation period - Failure to commence proceedings within limitation period - Defence pleading limitation period filed when proceedings commenced - Client not advised until amost 5 1/2 years after limitation period expired - Client then advised to seek advice from another solicitor but not advised of limitation period for proceedings against solicitor - Proceedings against solicitor not commenced until amost 3 years later - Defence pleading limitation period filed - Whether proceedings statute-barred D
CASES CITED:
Astley v. Austrust Liimited (1998-1999) 197 CLR 1
Avenhouse v. Hornsby Shire Council (1998) 44 NSWLR 1
Baltic Shipping Co. v. Dillon (1993) 176 CLR 344
Cheny & Wilson v. Duncan [2001] NSWCA 197
Curnick v. Nitschke [2001] NSWCA 176
Doundoulakis v. Antony Sdrinis & Co [1989] VR 781
Farley v. Skinner [2001] 3 WLR 899
Hawkins v. Clayton (1987-1988) 164 CLR 539
Heywood v. Wellers [1976] QB 446
Hill v. Van Erp (1996-1997) 188 CLR 159
Registrar-General v. Cleaver (1996) 41 NSWLR 713
Sampson v. Zucker Court of Appeal 11 December 1996 unreported
Scarcella v. Lettice [2000] NSWCA 289
Seymour v. Seymour (1996) 40 NSWLR 358
Waimond Pty. Ltd. v. Byrne (1989) 18 NSWLR 642
DECISION: Appeal dismissed





                          CA 40715/00
                          PRIESTLEY JA
                          POWELL JA
                          BEAZLEY JA

                          21 November 2001

ADRIAN RICHARD WALMSLEY v ANTONIO COSENTINO

Judgment

1 PRIESTLEY JA: I agree with Powell JA.

2 POWELL JA: This is an appeal from a judgment delivered by Garling DCJ on 30 August 2000, on which day his Honour found a verdict in favour of the Respondent against the Appellant in the sum of $474,478 in proceedings which the Respondent had brought to recover from the Appellant damages in respect of what was claimed to be the Appellant’s “professional negligence”.

3 The origin of the proceedings was the injuries which the Respondent sustained in a motor vehicle accident in which he was involved on 13 August 1980. On that day the Respondent, who was then just 25 years of age and who was then a self-employed contract tiler by occupation, was driving his utility in a southerly direction along the Princes Highway near Lacey Street, Kogarah when a Mrs Upton, who had been driving her motor vehicle in a northerly direction along Princes Highway, commenced to make a right hand turn from Princes Highway into…

Continue reading Walmsley v Cosentino

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Walmsley v Cosentino [2001] NSWCA 403
Case
[2001] NSWCA 403
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned a claim for professional negligence brought by the appellant, Mr Walmsley, against his former solicitors, the respondents, Cosentino & Co. Mr Walmsley had instructed the solicitors to act for him in recovering damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. The solicitors failed to commence proceedings within the relevant limitation period. When proceedings were eventually commenced, a defence pleading the limitation period was filed. Mr Walmsley was not advised of the limitation period for his claim against the solicitors until approximately 5 ½ years after the limitation period for the original accident claim had expired. He was then advised to seek advice from another solicitor but was not advised of the limitation period for proceedings against the original solicitors. Proceedings against the original solicitors were not commenced until approximately 3 years later, at which point a defence pleading the limitation period was again filed.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether Mr Walmsley's proceedings against his former solicitors were statute-barred. This required the court to consider the application of limitation periods to claims of professional negligence, particularly in circumstances where the client was not advised of the relevant time limits by their original legal advisors. The court had to determine when the cause of action accrued and whether the subsequent advice, or lack thereof, impacted the running of the limitation period.

The Court of Appeal, comprising Priestley, Powell and Beazley JJA, dismissed the appeal. The court's reasoning, though not detailed in the provided text, would have involved an analysis of the accrual of the cause of action for professional negligence and the application of the relevant limitation legislation to the facts. It is likely the court found that the limitation period for the claim against the solicitors had expired before proceedings were commenced, and that the solicitors' conduct did not prevent the limitation period from running or create a new cause of action that was not statute-barred. The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.