Jovanovic v Law Society of Tasmania & Ors

Jovanovic v Law Society of Tasmania & Ors - [2003] TASSC 65 - TASSC 2003 case summary — Zoe

[39]

"23 The 1st named Defendant, the 4th named Defendant and the 21st named Defendant, by their negligent acts and omissions, failure to act in good faith, breaches of fiduciary duty, breaches of duty of care and statutory breaches, caused the Plaintiff personal injuries and financial loss including inter alia, nervous shock, stress, psychological damage including post traumatic stress disorder and hypertension, loss of opportunity, loss of opportunity and loss of' chance to earn an income and avoid suffering financial loss and avoid criminal prosecution, legal abuse syndrome and litigation stress syndrome arising from Court of Petty Sessions Complaint No 99/92802, Federal Court matter No TG 3017 of 1998, Supreme Court matter No 94 of' 1999, Supreme Court matter LCA No 29 of 2000, Supreme Court matter No 105 of 2000, Supreme Court Matter No 153 of 2000, Supreme Court matter FCA No 14 of 2001, Supreme Court matter No 278 of' 2001, Supreme Court matter No 12435 of' 2001, Supreme Court matter No 92639 of 2001, and Supreme Court matter No 1465 of' 2001, discombobulation, trauma, depression, development of heteroclitical obsessions, including incessant obsessive behaviour, development of feelings of worthlessness, paranoia and development of feelings of persecution, loss of' business, economic loss, financial loss, and loss of future earnings and or which prevented and or hindered the Plaintiff from earning a living, and the plaintiff did suffer personal injuries and financial loss including inter alia, and loss legal abuse syndrome, and litigation stress syndrome arising from Court of Petty Sessions Complaint No 99/92802, Federal Court matter No TG 3017 of' 1998, Supreme Court matter No 94 of 1999, Supreme Court matter LCA No 29 of 2000, Supreme Court matter No 105 of 2000, Supreme Court matter No. 153 of 2000, Supreme Court matter FCA No 14 of 2001, Supreme Court matter No 278 of 2001, Supreme Court matter No 12435 of 2001, Supreme Court matter No 92639 of 2001, and Supreme Court matter No 1465 of 2001, nervous shock, stress, depression, psychological damage including post traumatic stress disorder and hypertension, discombobulation, trauma, development of heteroclitical obsessions, including incessant obsessive behaviour, development of feelings of worthlessness, paranoia and development of feelings of persecution, loss of business, economic loss, financial loss."

[95]

"214 The 2nd named Defendant, the 3rd named Defendant, the 8th named Defendant, the 9th named Defendant, the 10th named Defendant, the IIth named Defendant and the 20th named Defendant by their negligent acts and omissions, loss of opportunity, failure to act in good faith, breaches of fiduciary duty, breaches of duty of care, undue influence, economic duress, negligent advice, breach of undertaking, conflict of interest, fraud, deceit and statutory breaches caused the Plaintiff personal injuries and financial loss including inter alia, legal abuse syndrome, litigation stress syndrome arising from Court of Petty Sessions Complaint No 99/92802, Federal Court matter No TG 3017 of 1998, Supreme Court matter No 94 of 1999, Supreme Court matter LCA No 29 of 2000, Supreme Court matter No 105 of 2000, Supreme Court matter No 153 of 2000, Supreme Court matter FCA No 14 of 2001, Supreme Court matter No 278 of 2001, Supreme Court matter No 12435 of 2001, Supreme Court matter No 92639 of 2001, and Supreme Court matter No 1465 of 2001, nervous shock, depression, stress, psychological damage including post traumatic stress disorder and hypertension, discombobulation, trauma, development of heteroclitical obsessions, including incessant obsessive behaviour, development of feelings of worthlessness, paranoia and development of feelings of persecution, loss of business, economic loss, financial loss, and loss of future earnings and or which prevented and or hindered the Plaintiff from earning a living, and the plaintiff did suffer personal injuries and financial loss including inter alia, legal abuse syndrome, litigation stress syndrome arising from Court of Petty Sessions Complaint No 99/92802, Federal Court matter No TG 3017 of 1998, Supreme Court matter No 94 of 1999, Supreme Court matter LCA No 29 of 2000, Supreme Court matter No 105 of 2000, Supreme Court matter No 153 of 2000, Supreme Court matter FCA No 14 of 2001, Supreme Court matter No 278 of 2001, Supreme Court matter No 12435 of 2001, Supreme Court matter No 92639 of 2001, and Supreme Court matter No 1465 of 2001, nervous shock, stress, depression, psychological damage including post traumatic stress disorder and hypertension, discombobulation, trauma, development of heteroclitical obsessions, including incessant obsessive behaviour, development of feelings of worthlessness, paranoia and development of feelings of persecution, loss of business, economic loss, financial loss."

[144]

110 It is not clear from the pleadings whether the Society's alleged failure to investigate the complaints consisted of a complete failure to do anything, a failure to make a proper assessment of the evidence resulting in the wrongful dismissal of the complaints, or a failure to reach a determination satisfactory to the plaintiff (see par25 of the amended statement of claim cited above). In any event, his grievance sounds in administrative law, not in an action for damages in tort. Indeed, many of his pleadings are couched in the language of administrative law, such as his allegations of lack of due process, of denial of natural justice and of failing to act reasonably. Whether the Law Society is under a duty of care at common law to the plaintiff or is subject to a statutory obligation to investigate complaints, a breach of that duty or obligation does not sound in damages unless it can be shown at the very least that some damage has been caused to the plaintiff by that breach. The only damage on which the plaintiff relies is a loss of the opportunity to obtain a determination by the Council (or, if the matter is one which should have been referred to the Disciplinary Tribunal or the Supreme Court, as amounting to more than unprofessional conduct, by those entities) that the practitioners complained against pay compensation to him. He has not lost such rights as he may have to recover loss from the practitioners themselves by reason of the Law Society's alleged failure to investigate his complaints. Before he could have recovered such compensation, the wrongful conduct of the practitioners would have had to be proven, as would the extent of the loss. Furthermore, the practitioners in question would have had to consent to an order for compensation being made and the Council (Tribunal or Supreme Court, as the case may be) exercised a discretion to make it. I am at a loss to see how in these circumstances it could be said that he could have suffered damage by reason of the Council's alleged breach of statutory duty in depriving him of the opportunity to recover any loss at the hands of the practitioners by way of compensation rather than by way of damages in a civil action against them. In my view the claims against the Law Society on this basis cannot constitute a cause of action against it.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (185 paragraphs)

Jovanovic v Law Society of Tasmania & Ors (No 2) [2003] TASSC 65 (1 August 2003)

Parties

Legislation Cited (2)

Cases Cited (2)