Willoughby v Clayton Utz [No 2]

In the case of Willoughby v Clayton Utz, the appellants, the Willoughbys, sued the respondent, Clayton Utz, for damages resulting from alleged negligence and breach of contract. The dispute reached the High Court of Australia after the initial action was dismissed by the Federal Court due to the causes of action being vested in the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy. The causes of action were subsequently assigned to the appellants, leading to the commencement of a second action. The respondent applied for summary judgment, arguing that the defence of res judicata and the limitation period barred the second action.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the doctrine of res judicata required the respondent's summary judgment application to succeed, and whether the court should adhere to a New South Wales Court of Appeal decision. Additionally, the court considered whether there was an arguable case that the respondent should be estopped from relying on the limitation defence, and whether the deed of assignment contained an acknowledgment extending the limitation period.

The court determined that the doctrine of res judicata did not bar the second action as the causes of action had been assigned to the appellants after the first action was dismissed. The court also found that it was not bound by the New South Wales Court of Appeal decision, as the common law of Australia applied. The court held that there was no arguable case that the respondent should be estopped from relying on the limitation defence, and that the deed of assignment did not extend the limitation period. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.

The final orders of the court were that ground 1 of the appeal was upheld, while the other grounds were dismissed. The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused, leaving the lower court's decision in place.