NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Court of Appeal
CITATION: Coshott v Barry [2009] NSWCA 34
HEARING DATE(S): 5 & 6 February 2009
JUDGMENT DATE: 9 March 2009
JUDGMENT OF: Beazley JA at 1; Ipp JA at 2; Campbell JA at 113;
DECISION: Appeal dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS: LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - lawyers - other matters - whether solicitor negligent in handling of clients' case - whether clients exercised control over conduct of proceedings - whether advocate's immunity applies - no point of principal - TORTS - negligence - essentials of action for negligence - damages - loss of a commercial opportunity
LEGISLATION CITED: Civil Liability Act 2002 Ritchie's Uniform Civil Procedure NSW
CATEGORY: Principal judgment
Carantinos v Magafas [2008] NSWCA 304 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Hadfield [2001] NSWCA 440; (2001) 53 NSWLR 614 Giannarelli v Wraith [1988] HCA 52; (1988) 165 CLR 543 CASES CITED: Legione v Hately [1983] HCA 11; (1983) 152 CLR 406 Meehan v Glazier Holdings Pty Ltd [2002] NSWCA 22; (2002) 54 NSWLR 146 Partington v Reynolds (1858) 4 Drew 253 Sellars v Adelaide Petroleum NL [1994] HCA 4; (1994) 179 CLR 332
Ljiljana Coshott (First Appellant) PARTIES: Robert Gilbert Coshott (Second Appellant) Stephen Michael Barry ( Respondent)
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40766/07
COUNSEL: R G Coshott (Appellants) S A Kerr/P Kulevski (Respondent)
SOLICITORS: N/A (Appellants) Yeldham Price O'Brien Lusk (Respondent)
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 20114/04
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate