NSW Caselaw
Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Liddy v Bazley [2013] NSWCA 319 Hearing dates: 18 July 2013 Decision date: 27 September 2013 Before: Basten JA at [1]; Emmett JA at [73]; Leeming JA at [81] Decision: (1) Allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and orders made in the District Court. (2) In place thereof, order that - (a) the plaintiff's claim be dismissed, and (b) the plaintiff pay the defendants' costs of the trial. (3) The respondent pay the appellants' costs of the appeal. (4) The respondent have a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 (NSW) with respect to the costs of the appeal. [Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.] Catchwords: TORTS - professional negligence - breach of duty - solicitors instructed to make work injury damages claim - instructions given long after expiry of limitation period - failure to give advice and prosecute claim
TORTS - professional negligence - causation - failure to address as element of cause of action likely instructions based on legal advice as to comparative value of compensation entitlements and damages
TORTS - professional negligence - damages - assessment of likely recovery at notional trial date - allowance for chance of not obtaining extension of time - notional advice as to comparative value of compensation entitlements and damages - value of medical benefits Legislation Cited: Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996 (NSW), s 34 Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), ss 151A, 151D, 151G, 151H, 151Z Cases Cited: Firth v Sutton [2010] NSWCA 90 Fox v Wood [1981] HCA 41; 148 CLR 438 Category: Principal judgment Parties: James Gervase Liddy, Stephen Gerard Cahill, Raymond John McClenahan and Anthony Simic (Appellants) Michael Laurence Bazley (Respondent) Representation: Counsel:
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