Boland v Yates Property Corporation Pty Ltd [1999] HCA 64

High Court of Australia Gleeson CJ Gaudron, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne and Callinan JJ Boland v Yates Property Corporation Pty Ltd (S28/1999S24/1999) [1999] HCA 64

Catchwords

Negligence - professional negligence - legal practitioners - standard of care

Acquisition of land - determination of compensation - special value of land to dispossessed owner - theory of head start to developers

Legal practitioners - professional liability - negligence - barristers and solicitors - immunity from action

Legislation Cited

Trade Practices Act 1974 Cth, s 52.

Public Works Act 1912 NSW, s 124.

Darling Harbour Authority Act 1984 NSW, s 12C.

ORDER

1. Appeals allowed with costs.

2. Set aside the orders of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia made on 5 August 1998 (as varied by the orders made on 30 November 1998), and in place thereof, order that the appeals to that Court (other than the appeal of Ian Francis Yates against the order as to costs made against him by Branson J on 14 August 1997) are dismissed with costs.

3. Remit to the Full Court for further consideration the appeal of Ian Francis Yates against the orders as to costs made against him by Branson J on 14 August 1997.

Gleeson CJ

1. These two appeals were heard together. They arise out of actions for damages for professional negligence.

2. Each appellant is a legal practitioner. The first respondent, Yates Property Corporation Pty Limited ("Yates") was the client of the appellants. The first appellant, Mr Boland, was sued by Yates as a representative of Abbott Tout Russell Kennedy ("Abbott Tout"), a firm of solicitors engaged to act for Yates in the conduct of a compensation claim before the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The second appellant, Mr Webster, is a barrister who acted as junior counsel in the proceedings before the Land and Environment Court. Mr Webster was led in those proceedings by Mr Simos QC, who was also sued by Yates. The second respondent to each appeal, Mr Yates, is the controlling shareholder of Yates. He was not a party to the original actions brought by Yates, but was joined in the proceedings when an order for costs was sought and made against him.