To comply with suppression a free version of the following decision is not available on NZLII.
EA v Rennie Cox Lawyers [2018] NZCA 33
Court of Appeal
CA437/2017
[2018] 3 NZLR 202; [2018] NZCA 33
5 March 2018
Winkelmann, Clifford and Gilbert JJ
A court-ready version of this decision may be found at the following (fee required) link.
Details
- AGLC
- EA v Rennie Cox Lawyers [2018] NZCA 33
- Case
- [2018] NZCA 33
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The parties involved in this case were EA, the appellant, and Rennie Cox Lawyers, the respondents. The dispute involved an allegation of professional negligence by the respondents against EA. The case was heard in the New Zealand Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal was tasked with reviewing the decision of the High Court that had dismissed EA's claim for damages against Rennie Cox Lawyers for professional negligence.
The legal issues that the Court of Appeal was required to decide included whether the High Court had correctly applied the standard of care owed by a solicitor to a client in a professional negligence case, and whether the High Court had properly assessed the quantum of damages. Another issue was whether the Court had properly considered the applicability of the Limitation Act 2010 to the case.
The Court of Appeal found that the High Court had not correctly applied the standard of care owed by a solicitor to a client. The Court held that the standard of care owed by a solicitor is that of a reasonably competent solicitor, and that the High Court had incorrectly applied the standard of care of a reasonably competent barrister. The Court of Appeal also found that the High Court had erred in its assessment of the quantum of damages, as it had failed to take into account the full extent of the loss suffered by EA. The Court further held that the High Court had not properly considered the applicability of the Limitation Act 2010 to the case.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the High Court, and remitted the case to the High Court for rehearing. The Court of Appeal also ordered that the respondents pay EA's costs of the appeal.
The legal issues that the Court of Appeal was required to decide included whether the High Court had correctly applied the standard of care owed by a solicitor to a client in a professional negligence case, and whether the High Court had properly assessed the quantum of damages. Another issue was whether the Court had properly considered the applicability of the Limitation Act 2010 to the case.
The Court of Appeal found that the High Court had not correctly applied the standard of care owed by a solicitor to a client. The Court held that the standard of care owed by a solicitor is that of a reasonably competent solicitor, and that the High Court had incorrectly applied the standard of care of a reasonably competent barrister. The Court of Appeal also found that the High Court had erred in its assessment of the quantum of damages, as it had failed to take into account the full extent of the loss suffered by EA. The Court further held that the High Court had not properly considered the applicability of the Limitation Act 2010 to the case.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the High Court, and remitted the case to the High Court for rehearing. The Court of Appeal also ordered that the respondents pay EA's costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.