Stephen James Rigg v Paul Sheridan & Ors

[2008] NSWCA 79

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Equity
2. › Fiduciary Duty
3. › Conflict of duties
4. › Solicitor acting for multiple parties
5. › Whether real sensible possibility of conflict
6. › Limited retainer to implement agreed transaction
1. Equity
2. › Fiduciary Duty
3. › Duty to disclose material facts
4. › Whether reduced risk of legal challenge constitutes material fact requiring disclosure
1. Equity
2. › Fiduciary Duty
3. › Causation
4. › Whether causation relevant to breach of fiduciary duty for non-disclosure
5. › Whether disclosure would have altered client's conduct
1. Solicitors
2. › Duty of care
3. › Acting for multiple parties
4. › Whether duty of care required advice to obtain separate representation
5. › Causation

Quick Take

A solicitor retained to implement an agreed transaction for multiple parties is not in breach of fiduciary duty merely because of a theoretical possibility of conflict where no actual conflict arises. The reduced risk of legal challenge that would result from a party obtaining separate representation is not a material fact that the solicitor is bound to disclose. Causation remains relevant to claims for breach of fiduciary duty for non-disclosure, and the Brickenden principle does not preclude inquiry into what would have happened had disclosure been made.