WILLOUGHBY -v- CLAYTON UTZ [2007] WASC 281

Link to Appeal :

[2008] WASCA 93 [2009] WASCA 29

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2007] WASC 281
Case No:	CIV:1764/2005	Heard:	26 SEPTEMBER 2007
Coram:	ACTING MASTER CHAPMAN	Delivered:	26/11/07
No of pages:	14	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Judgment be entered
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	BERYL FRANCES WILLOUGHBY JOHN FRANCIS WILLOUGHBY MICHAEL STEPHEN WILLOUGHBY CLAYTON UTZ
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Summary judgment Res judicata Limitation period Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 16 r 1
Case References:	De Sousa v Minister for Immigration, Local Government & Ethnic Affairs (1993) 41 FCR 544 Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 87 Hawkins v Clayton (1988) 164 CLR 539 Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia v Hunt (1982) 44 ALR 365 Jackson v Goldsmith (1950) 81 CLR 446 Lee v St George Bank Ltd [2006] WASC 221 O'Donnell Griffin Pty Ltd v Davis [2007] WASC 215 Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589 Schokman v Hogg [2003] QCA 28 Willoughby v Clayton Utz [2005] WASC 47 Willoughby v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2001] FCA 1345 Willoughby v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2001] FCA 753 Yandil Holdings Pty Ltd v Insurance Co of North America (1985) 3 ACLC 542

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : WILLOUGHBY -v- CLAYTON UTZ [2007] WASC 281 CORAM : ACTING MASTER CHAPMAN HEARD : 26 SEPTEMBER 2007 DELIVERED : 27 NOVEMBER 2007 FILE NO/S : CIV 1764 of 2005 BETWEEN : BERYL FRANCES WILLOUGHBY

First Plaintiff

JOHN FRANCIS WILLOUGHBY

Second Plaintiff

MICHAEL STEPHEN WILLOUGHBY

Third Plaintiff

AND

CLAYTON UTZ

Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Summary judgment - Res judicata - Limitation period - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 16 r 1

(Page 2)

Result:

Judgment be entered

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff : Mr K J Kimball

Second Plaintiff : Mr K J Kimball

Third Plaintiff : Mr K J Kimball

Defendant : Mr P C S Van Hattem

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff : Sajen Legal

Second Plaintiff : Sajen Legal

Third Plaintiff : Sajen Legal

Defendant : Freehills

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

De Sousa v Minister for Immigration, Local Government & Ethnic Affairs (1993) 41 FCR 544
Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 87
Hawkins v Clayton (1988) 164 CLR 539
Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia v Hunt (1982) 44 ALR 365
Jackson v Goldsmith (1950) 81 CLR 446
Lee v St George Bank Ltd [2006] WASC 221
O'Donnell Griffin Pty Ltd v Davis [2007] WASC 215
Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589
Schokman v Hogg [2003] QCA 28
Willoughby v Clayton Utz [2005] WASC 47
Willoughby v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2001] FCA 1345
Willoughby v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2001] FCA 753
Yandil Holdings Pty Ltd v Insurance Co of North America (1985) 3 ACLC 542

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Willoughby v Clayton Utz and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2007] WASC 281
Decision Date: 27 NOVEMBER 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Willoughby v Clayton Utz involved a dispute where the plaintiff sought to hold the defendant, a law firm, liable for professional negligence in relation to advice provided to the plaintiff. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff sought a declaration that the defendant's conduct constituted professional negligence and claimed damages for losses incurred as a result. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff's claims were statute-barred and that the matter was res judicata.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff's claims were statute-barred under the relevant limitation period, and if the matter was res judicata due to a previous proceeding between the parties. The court needed to determine if the plaintiff's claims were precluded by prior litigation or if they were subject to the statutory limitation period, which could potentially bar the action. Additionally, the court considered whether the plaintiff's claims turned on their own facts or if they could be resolved based on established legal principles.

The court found that the plaintiff's claims were indeed statute-barred, as they were brought outside the applicable limitation period. The court further held that the matter was not res judicata because the previous proceeding did not involve the same subject matter and the facts of the current case were distinct. The court concluded that the plaintiff's claims were precluded by the statutory limitation period, and thus, the defendant's motion for summary judgment should be granted. Consequently, judgment was entered in favour of the defendant, dismissing the plaintiff's claims.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment be entered

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.