Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Summary available
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: WHITE v FORSTER [2015] NSWCA 245 Hearing dates: 4 June 2015 Date of orders: 25 August 2015 Decision date: 25 August 2015 Before: Bathurst CJ at [1]; McColl JA at [57]; Emmett JA at [58] Decision: Leave to appeal refused with costs
Catchwords: CIVIL LAW – professional negligence – whether respondents protected from suit by advocate’s immunity
CIVIL LAW – professional negligence – whether proceedings statute-barred under s 14 of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW)Legislation Cited: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)Cases Cited: D’Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid [2005] HCA 12; 223 CLR 1
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) [1964] HCA 69; 112 CLR 125
Giannarelli v Wraith [1988] HCA 52; 165 CLR 543
Saif Ali v Sydney Mitchell & Co (1980) AC 198
Thompson v White & Anor; ACDC v Thompson [2005] NSWSC 1257
Thompson v White [2008] NSWSC 1
Thompson v White [2008] NSWSC 157
United Australia Ltd v Barclays Bank Ltd (1941) AC 1
Wardley Australia Ltd v The State of Western Australia [1992] HCA 55; 175 CLR 514
White & Anor v Thompson & Ors [2009] NSWSC 1103
White & Libut v Thompson & Ors [2011] NSWCA 161
White v Forster [2014] NSWSC 1767
Zavodnyik v Alex Constructions Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 438; 67 NSWLR 457Category: Principal judgment Parties: Julian John White (First Applicant)
Romeo Medina Libut (Second Applicant)
Reginald John Forster (First Respondent)
Gregory Peter George (Second Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
D Ash (First and Second Applicant)
C Withers (First Respondent)
DT Miller SC / MR Elliot (Second Respondent)
Yeldam Price O’Brian Lusk (First Respondent)
Moray & Agnew (Second Respondent)
File Number(s): 2015/4287 Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- Supreme Court of New South Wales
- Jurisdiction:
- Common Law
- Citation:
- [2014] NSWSC 1767
- Date of Decision:
- 22 April 2014
- Before:
- Button J
- File Number(s):
- 2011/396151
Judgment
-
BATHURST CJ: This is an application for leave to appeal from orders of the primary judge striking out a statement of claim brought by the applicants, Mr Julian White (the first applicant) and Mr Romeo Libut (the second applicant), against the first respondent, Mr Reginald Forster (the solicitor) and the second respondent, Mr Gregory George (the barrister).
Background
-
In 1997, the applicants entered into a joint venture agreement with a Mr Bryon Thompson (Mr Thompson) to develop and sell a property at 65 Ellery Parade, Seaforth (the Seaforth property). A company, Aerated Concrete Design and Construction Pty Ltd, of which the applicants were the directors and shareholders, was also involved in the joint venture. It is not clear what part it played, but none of the parties to the application contended that its role was of any significance to the outcome of the proceedings.
-
On 30 March 2003, Mr Thompson’s wife (Mrs Thompson) contracted to purchase a property at 710 Wiseman’s Ferry Road, Somersby…
Continue reading White v Forster
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- White v Forster [2015] NSWCA 245
- Case
- [2015] NSWCA 245
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the respondents were protected from suit by the doctrine of advocate's immunity, and whether the proceedings were statute-barred by operation of section 14 of the *Limitation Act 1969* (NSW).
The court considered the application of advocate's immunity in the context of the alleged negligence. It also examined the relevant provisions of the *Limitation Act 1969* (NSW) to determine if the claim had been brought within the prescribed time limits.
Leave to appeal was refused, with costs awarded to the respondents.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal refused with costs
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.