Brett Raymond Gooley as Executor of the Estate of the late Melville William Gooley v Dedousis [2026] NSWSC 660 (Link to Caselaw).
Dr Gooley was both the beneficiary and executor of his father’s considerable deceased estate under a 2010 will for which probate was granted, following a dispute about six further wills he had later made.
Dr Dedousis was at relevant times the father’s geriatrician and his advice about the father’s capacity arose for consideration. Sackar J found the advice to have been wrong. Sackar J found that the father had no testamentary capacity when the later wills were made: Aleta Gooley & Anor v Brett Gooley [2021] NSWSC 56.
Dr Gooley now pursues claims against Dr Dedousis for damages for his alleged negligence, claiming that he had failed to diagnose or disclose that his father had suffered dementia and had cognitive limitations when he made the later wills and also entered other transactions, with resulting economic loss (primarily litigation costs).
This judgment deals with Dr Dedousis’ second application to have Dr Gooley’s claims summarily dismissed. That application was ultimately unsuccessful.
There was no issue that any losses that materialised from Dr Dedousis’ negligence before the father’s death attract the provisions of s 2 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. But it is relevant that its terms were not identified in Hill v Van Erp or Badenach as precluding a beneficiary’s pursuit of damages against a solicitor, which materialised only on or after death. ([96]). The court stated at [97]:
What is pursued against Dr Dedousis undoubtedly raises a number of novel questions. But I am satisfied that given what it seems he was retained to do, that is not a basis on which summary dismissal of these proceedings can justly be ordered.
[BillMaddensWordpress #2541]