Hawkins V Clayton Case Summary

Hawkins v Clayton 1988 HCA 15 (1988) 164 CLR 539 (8 April 1988) risque court of justice of Australia Case Title HAWKINS v. CLAYTON 1988 HCA 15 (1988) 164 CLR 539 F. C. 88/012 Medium Neutral Citation1988 HCA 15 Hearing Date(s) 1987, whitethorn 13 1988, April 8 Decision Date20 June 2011 Jurisdiction High tourist court of Australia BeforeC. J Mason J. Wilson J. Brennan J. Deane J. Gaudron Catchwords Negligence Duty of precaution Solicitor Will held by solicitor Failure to inform executor of last of testator and of contents Whether traffic to do so Loss to domain caused by executors ignorance of destruction Measure of damages.Limitation of moions Tort Accrual of cause of litigate Running of cartridge clip Commencement Breach by solicitor of obligation of care to inform executor of testators last Loss to estate caused by executors ignorance of death Limitation Act 1969 (N. S. W. ), s. 14(1). Legislation Cited Limitation Act 1969 (N. S. W. ), s. 14(1) Wills, Prob ate and organisation Act 1898 (N. S. W. ), s. 150 s. 32 of the Wills, Probate and Administration Act s. 61 of the Wills, Probate and Administration Act Cases Cited pro launch Trust Co. v. Rafuse (1986) 31 DLR (4th) 481, at p 521Bowen v. Paramount Builders (1977) 1 NZLR 394, per capital of Virginia P. , at p 407 Central Trust Co. v. Rafuse (1986) 31 DLR (4th) 481, at p 521 Bowen v. Paramount Builders (1977) 1 NZLR 394, per Richmond P. , at p 407 Voli v. Inglewood Shire Council 1963 HCA 15 (1963) 110 CLR 74, at p 85 Midland Bank v. Hett, Stubbs and Kemp (1979) Ch 384, at pp 402-403 Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd. v. Heller & Partners Ltd. 1963 UKHL 4 AC 465 Marsh in all v. Broadhurst (1831) 1 C & J 403 1831 EngR 151 (148 ER 1480) Balch v. Symes 1823 EngR 362 (1823) Turn & R 87, at p 92Aeblys Will (1941) 29 NYS 2d 929, at pp 931-932 support (1941) 31 NYS 2d 664 Georges v. Georges 1811 EngR 446 (1811) 18 VesJun 294 (34 ER 328) Lord v. Wormleighton 1822 EngR 477 (1822) Jac 580, at p 581 1822 EngR 477 (37 ER 969) Estate of Harvey (1907) P 239 Goods of Shepherd (1891) P 323, at p 326 Hollis v. Smith (1808) 10 East 293, at p 295 (103 ER 786, at p 787) Meyappa Chetty v. Supramanian Chetty (1916) 1 AC 603, at pp 608-609 Ryan v. Davies Bros. Ltd. 1921 HCA 53 (1921) 29 CLR 527, at p 536) Pinchons Case 1572 EngR 289 (1611) 9 CoRep 86b, at p 88b 1572 EngR 289 (77 ER 859, at p 863)Texts Cited Sir James Stephen, A History of the Criminal Law of England (1883) Parties agency Counsel File number(s) DECISION The case of Hawkins V Clayton was the result of a faulting of duty by the solicitors of the testator, Mrs Brasier, and to the executor of the estate, Mr Hawkins. The solicitors were in custody of Mrs Brasiers will and seemingly were not aware of the testators death for some time as they had written letters to her regarding her will in September 1978 and rarified 1979 with no response.After the commencement of the save interpreted up by Mr Hawkins, he had passed and his widow and executor continued the action as she had become Mrs Brasiers executor by devolution. Mr Hawkins and his family had lived with Mrs Brasier as a tenant in her national at Blakehurst, sometime during August 1973 Mr Hawkins and Mrs Brasier had had a dis ensurement and the Hawkins family had leftover the Blakehurst house. It was determined that Mrs Brasier had spoken with Mr Hawkins ab bring out his appointment as executor only when had not confirmed it once the will was written.After August 1973 Mrs Brasier had tinct the solicitors to make a overbold will but had not carried out the changes and the solicitors had not had any instructions from her since. After the death of Mrs Braiser, her nephew, Ronald Lamb had taken up residence in her house and had not paid any rent or maintained the property. Mr Lamb had contacted the solicitors and had represented to them that Mr Hawkins had disappeared and requested fee out of the estate for funeral expenses.Some years later, Mr Hardwi ck who had been handling the matter had retired and upon the retention of new solicitors from the Executor, had rendered an account for services provided to the estate. This case was heard in the High accost of Australia on appeal from the judgment handed down from the Supreme Court of New South Wales. In the judgment from the Supreme Court, it was give that the formula of Limitations had barred the solicitors from being found guilty of a breach of duty of care.The High Court Judges had not reached a unanimous conclusion regarding the duty of care owed to the executor. Mason C. J and Wilson J found that thither was no duty of care owed to Mr Hawkins and suggested the appeal be dismissed, on the different hand Brennan, Deane, Gaudron JJ had found that there had been a breach of the duty owed to Mr Hawkins, and that the Limitations Act would not affect any claim of such a breach as the breach did not occur at the time of the death of Mrs Braiser but from when the Solicitors found out of her death.There was argument that the resultant damages incurred by Mr Hawkins was caused by his ignorance of the will and his failure to administer the estate it was however found that the damages were indeed caused by the lack of the solicitors to promptly notify Mr Hawkins of his enliven in the estate and his role as executor. Brennan, Deane, Gaudron JJ ordered that damages be paid by the respondents though as the damages had not been quantified, they all agreed that the parties should discuss and agree to the amount of damages payable, if the parties could not agree to an amount, the Supreme Court of NSW would determine the costs owed.The final orders as found in the judgment are as follows 1. the appeal to that Court be allowed with costs 2. the judgment of Yeldham J. be set aside 3. in seat thereof judgment be entered for the plaintiff for damages to be assessed 4. the action be remitted for determination by a judge of the Supreme Court and 5. the defendants to pay t he plaintiffs costs to be taxed.