I posted about Swart v Carr here and here. It is a decision about whether a solicitor’s liability for certain entrepeneurial activities undertaken by him ‘was incurred “in connection with” “the business of practising as a solicitor”. The trial judge answered affirmatively. Now Justice Palmer’s decision has been reversed by the New South Wales Court of Appeal, in a decision about which professional indemnity insurers of lawyers will be relieved: Carr v Swart [2007] NSWCA 337.
On the way through, the solicitor served a creditor’s statutory demand on Lawcover, and Lawcover succeeded in having it set aside. The decision ([2007] NSWSC 306) might conceivably be a useful illustration of the nature of the rights and obligations of a claimant, insured and insurer, but I have not read it.
See also:
- Misuse of statutory demand yields costs against solicitor personally
- Solicitors’ liability paper; conflicts of lawyers acting for insurer and insured
- Detailed causation analysis in solicitor’s negligence case
- Solicitors’ Liability Committee v Gray summarised by NSW Supreme Court judge
- Ohio State Medical Association Frivolous Lawsuits Committee scores 3 victories against med neg plaintiff lawyers
0 responses so far ↓
There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.
Leave a Comment