Odlum v Stephen Friend t/as Friend & Co Lawyers and anor (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1408

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Odlum v Stephen Friend t/as Friend & Co Lawyers and anor (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1408 Hearing dates: 2 November 2021 Date of orders: 2 November 2021 Decision date: 02 November 2021 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Schmidt AJ Decision: Motion dismissed. See paragraphs [41]-[43]. Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE —— Application for court-appointed barrister — further application for referral to pro-bono panel for assistance— whether special reasons for referral established — application dismissed — belated application for adjournment of hearing — plaintiff not ready to proceed — plaintiff's failure to adhere to Court's orders — alleged evidence tampering — disagreement over court book contents — application refused Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) Property (Relationships) Act 1984 Cases Cited: Bowling v Bowling [2011] NSWSC 1168 Odlum v Friend and Anor [2021] NSWSC 577 Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Judith Anne Odlum (Plaintiff) Stephen Friend trading as Friend and Co Lawyers (First Defendant) Andrew J Paterson (Second Defendant) Representation: Counsel: D A Lloyd with G Marsden (First Defendant) C Webster SC (Second Defendant)

Solicitors: Mullane & Lindsay (First Defendant) Carter Newell (Second Defendant) File Number(s): 2017/00378597

Judgment 1. Ms Odlum was a party to proceedings in the Equity Division of this Court in relation to a dispute with her former de facto spouse over a property, brought under s 20 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW). In these proceedings she pursues a statement of claim against her former solicitor, Mr Friend and former counsel, Mr Paterson, for alleged negligence and misleading and deceptive advice, in contravention of s 42(1) of the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW), when they represented her in the Equity proceedings. 2. Ms Odlum claims that their advice resulted in her rejecting an offer of settlement, which then led to her losing the opportunity to acquire the sole legal and beneficial title in the property, which she had instructed that she wished to acquire. 3. Orders for division of the property had been made in December 2011, which Ms Odlum claims substantially reflected an offer of compromise which she had received: Bowling v Bowling [2011] NSWSC 1168. The parties were given 21 days to come to an agreement about her purchase of Mr Bowling's share of the property, failing which it was to be sold. Negotiations ensued, but Ms Odlum rejected another offer, she claims on the negligent advice of the defendants. 4. Ms Odlum complains that as a result she lost not only the opportunity to acquire Mr Bowling's share of the property, but to limit her liability to pay his costs to $30,000. 5. The claims are defended, the alleged negligence being denied, advocates immunity being relied on, proportionate liability defences under the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) also being raised and the damages pursued said not to be available on Ms Odlum's pleaded case.