White v Forster

Case [2015] NSWCA 245


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 457
Category: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:
D Ash (First and Second Applicant)
C Withers (First Respondent)
DT Miller SC / MR Elliot (Second Respondent)

Solicitors:
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

  1. 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

  1. 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.

  2. 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

Details
AGLC
White v Forster [2015] NSWCA 245
Case
[2015] NSWCA 245
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties to this appeal were the plaintiff, White, and the respondents, who were solicitors. The dispute concerned allegations of professional negligence against the solicitors. The matter came before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

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.