Roberts v Cashman [2000] NSWSC 770

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Roberts v Cashman [2000] NSWSC 770 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law - Professional Negligence List FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 21303/95 HEARING DATE(S) : 10/07/00; 11/07/00; 12/07/00; 13/07/00; 14/07/00 JUDGMENT DATE : 30 August 2000

PARTIES : Grace Ellen ROBERTS v Peter Kenneth CASHMAN t/a Cashman & Partners JUDGMENT OF : Whealy J at 1

COUNSEL : Mr G.B. Hall QC; Ms Ryan - Plaintiff Mr A. M. Colefax - Defendant SOLICITORS : Brydens Law Office - Plaintiff Mallesons Stephen Jaques - Defendant CATCHWORDS : Professional Negligence LEGISLATION CITED : Sale of Goods Act 1923 (as amended) Johnson v Perex (1988) 166 CLR 351; Sellars v Adelaide Petroleum (1994) 120 ALR 16; Nikalaou v Papasavas, Phillips & Co (1988-89) 166 CLR 394 Todorovic v Waller (1981) 150 CLR 412 CASES CITED : Golec v Scott & Ors (1995-1996) 38 NSWLR 168 at 169 Griffiths v Kerkemeyer (1997) 139 CLR 161 at 173-174; 192-193 Van Gervan v Fenton (1992) 175 CLR 327 at 338-340 Kars v Kars (1996-1997) 187 CLR 354 Grincelis v House (HC of Aust, 3 August 2000, unreported) MBP (SA) Pty Ltd v Gogic (1991) 171 CLR 657 DECISION : Verdict for the Plaintiff

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE LIST

WHEALY J

WEDNESDAY 30 August 2000

21303/95 - Grace Ellen ROBERTS v Peter Kenneth CASHMAN t/a CASHMAN & PARTNERS

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff is Grace Ellen Roberts. She has brought proceedings against the defendant trading as Cashman & Partners. This is a firm of solicitors well known throughout Australia as a firm specialising in class actions particularly in the field of products liability. 2 The essence of the plaintiff's claim is that the defendant breached a duty of care owed to her and was negligent arising out of the relationship of solicitor and client. She seeks damages.