Woodland v Donnellan

The plaintiffs, Mr and Mrs Woodland, sought damages from the defendants, Mr and Mrs Donnellan, for the loss of a right of way over the Donnellans' land, which was a necessary condition for their enjoyment of their property. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants' solicitor was negligent in failing to inform them that the right of way had been extinguished by an easement granted by the plaintiffs to a third party, and that this negligence caused the plaintiffs to incur substantial costs in their unsuccessful attempt to establish the right of way. The defendants denied negligence on the part of their solicitor and argued that the solicitor was entitled to advocates' immunity.

The court was required to determine whether the solicitor owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs, whether that duty was breached, and whether the breach caused the plaintiffs' loss. The court also had to consider the applicability of advocates' immunity to the solicitor's conduct. The plaintiffs argued that the solicitor owed a duty of care to them because they were the intended beneficiaries of the solicitor's conduct, and that the duty was breached by the solicitor's failure to inform them of the easement. The defendants argued that the solicitor did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiffs because they were not parties to the transaction, and that even if a duty was owed, it was not breached because the solicitor was exercising professional judgment.

The court found that the solicitor did owe a duty of care to the plaintiffs because they were the intended beneficiaries of the solicitor's conduct, and that the duty was breached by the solicitor's failure to inform them of the easement. The court held that advocates' immunity did not apply because the solicitor's conduct was not an act done in the course of advocacy, but rather was a failure to perform a duty of care owed to the plaintiffs. The court found that the breach of duty caused the plaintiffs' loss because if the plaintiffs had been aware of the easement, they would not have incurred the costs of their unsuccessful attempt to establish the right of way.

The court awarded the plaintiffs damages in the amount of $150,000, representing the costs they incurred in their attempt to establish the right of way. The court also ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the proceedings.