Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
The High Court refused to revisit a failed damages claim arising from negligent legal advice on a pre-marriage financial agreement.
JHVEPhoto - stock.adobe.com
Five of the seven High Court justices, including Chief Justice Stephen Gageler, refused to revisit the November 2025 decision that put a stop to a man’s claim for the damages he alleged he suffered as a result of his former lawyers’ negligent contract advice.
In that decision, the High Court upheld a finding that R Lawyers breached its duty of care in advising the man – known by the pseudonym Mr Daily – about the financial agreement, but would not grant him damages beyond the $38,000 already ordered.
The court also maintained the finding that Mr Daily’s claim was not statute barred, as argued by R Lawyers, but accepted its position that Mr Daily had not produced evidence to establish a properly drafted agreement would have resulted in a better financial outcome.
As a result, R Lawyers came out on top in the High Court decision.
Mr Daily recently applied for “clarification of the procedural consequences of the orders” made in 2025 or, alternatively, for a variation of those orders, but the High Court refused his bid.
In a decision published earlier this month, the court said it was not apparent there was “any justifiable controversy” to support the application, and, in any event, “this court would decline to exercise its jurisdiction to grant a declaration to ‘clarify’ its orders”.
The High Court added its orders and reasons “speak for itself”.
“In substance, the application seeks an advisory opinion which the court has no power to give.
“There are also powerful reasons of finality why any discretion would be exercised only in the rarest of circumstances.
“Moreover, the court’s jurisdiction to reopen a judgment is to be exercised with great caution. No basis for reopening the judgment has been established,” the bench concluded.
Mr Daily pursued R Lawyers for negligence after his wife successfully had the pre-marriage agreement set aside by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA) on the grounds it was void for uncertainty and there had been a material change in circumstances relating to the care, welfare, and development of children.
The trial judge found that, by provision of “cursory, nonspecific advice”, R Lawyers failed to advise Mr Daily as to those two bases. It rejected the broader contention that R Lawyers’ negligence had left Mr Daily financially worse off following proceedings with his wife.
Daily was awarded $38,000 for legal costs wasted in litigating the agreement’s validity but, unsatisfied with this amount, appealed to the appellate division to secure a greater figure.
The appeal was allowed, with the Full Court finding a lost opportunity to negotiate a financial agreement that made provision for the birth of children. It also rejected R Lawyers’ limitation argument, finding Mr Daily’s claim was not statute-barred.
It was this limitation finding that was upheld by the High Court.
The High Court’s November 2025 orders had the effect of setting aside the appellate orders and dismissing Mr Daily’s appeal.
Original decision: R Lawyers v Mr Daily [2025] HCA 41.
New decision: R Lawyers v Mr Daily [No 2] [2026] HCA 31.
