You have 0 free articles left this month.
Advertisement
Corporate Counsel

National firm accused of contractual, fiduciary breaches

A major BigLaw firm has gone head-to-head with a former client who alleged it provided negligent advice more than a decade ago, leaving him on the hook for significant costs and a loss of opportunities.

February 12, 2026 By Naomi Neilson
Share this article on:
expand image

Former Corrs Chambers Westgarth client Patrick Jebb has convinced the West Australian Supreme Court that he has brought “competent” proceedings against the firm for alleged breaches of contractual, tortious and fiduciary duties between May and November 2014.

In a decision published earlier this week, Justice Marcus Solomon found Jebb vested with the cause of action against Corrs when he commenced proceedings, despite the firm having entered a retainer with his Trafalgar West Investments Trust before he became involved.

 
 

Having come to this determination, Jebb was “able to commence, or is otherwise able to maintain, these proceedings”.

The current proceedings relate to Trafalgar’s lawsuit against Superior Lawns for “significant damages” and its November 2013 litigation funding agreement with LCM Litigation Management. Jebb was not appointed as trustee until December 2016, after the events in question.

In May 2014, following an application by Superior Lawns for additional security for costs, Corrs recommended Trafalgar offer further security in the form of tranches. It agreed to this in November.

Just before the second tranche was due, LCM gave Trafalgar its notice of termination and no longer bore obligation to provide security.

Trafalgar was unable to meet the liability for security, leading to a series of applications and further proceedings – which by then included Jebb – that were “largely if not entirely unsuccessful”.

Jebb alleged the events that led to the Superior Lawn proceedings being dismissed were “ultimately caused by Corrs’ advice in the period of May to November 2014 in respect of the provision of security”.

He claimed Corrs should have advised of the risks in structuring the liability for payment in tranches – namely that LCM “would more readily be able to avoid liability when it eventually arose” – and Corrs should have recommended Trafalgar seek an arrangement from LCM under which all the liability would be agreed by it irrevocably.

In addition to pleading the loss of the proceedings, Jebb has pleaded the loss of opportunities in September or November 2014 to put in place measures to prevent the dismissal from happening.

This is together with losses from liability for costs orders and the loss of money paid as security that were incurred as a result of the loss of the opportunities. The loss of the opportunity to obtain an award of damages is pleaded as the “ultimate consequence”.

Jebb contended he was vested with the claim against Corrs upon his appointment and is entitled to orders to effect that vesting.

In response, Corrs said he was not vested and is now not entitled to be vested, and therefore Jebb has no standing to maintain the action.

Further, Corrs submitted that even if Jebb were vested with the cause of action, that occurred after the limitation period for that action expired. Should that be the case, Corrs said Jebb “cannot or should not now be entitled to cure that through retrospective vesting orders”.

Justice Solomon found the deed was sufficient to assign all existing and future property to Jebb as the successor trustee.

The cause of action, found to be accrued in November 2014, was vested in Jebb by reason of the deed and instrument of appointment in December 2016, meaning the “proceedings are competent”.

“The claim against Corrs was, in any event, the subject of an equitable assignment to Jebb by reason of the deed, and the proceedings are competent,” Justice Solomon said.

However, Justice Solomon also found the cause of action was not vested in Trafalgar at the time it was deregistered.

“If, contrary to my conclusions, it was necessary to comply with the requirements of s 20 of the Property Law Act and the letter did not constitute notice, then the assignment of the claim was not perfected until after the limitation period expired. In those circumstances, the proceedings cannot be maintained,” Justice Solomon said.

The case: Patrick Jebb as trustee for Trafalgar West Investments Trust v Corrs Chambers Westgarth (A Firm) [No 3] [2026] WASC 27.

Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly, as well as other titles under the Momentum Media umbrella. She regularly writes about matters before the Federal Court of Australia, the Supreme Courts, the Civil and Administrative Tribunals, and the Fair Work Commission. Naomi has also published investigative pieces about the legal profession, including sexual harassment and bullying, wage disputes, and staff exoduses. You can email Naomi at: naomi.neilson@momentummedia.com.au.