Lucantonio v Kleinert & ors [2011] NSWSC 753

Lucantonio v Kleinert & ors [2011] NSWSC 753

The architect did not depart from the standards of a reasonably competent and prudent architect and his advice, though ultimately shown to be incorrect due to innovative solutions discovered much later, was a professional opinion genuinely held and with reasonable basis. Neither the barrister nor solicitor acted outside the standard expected of reasonable professionals, and any failure by the solicitor to give timely advice did not cause the loss, as the client would not have adopted a different course if properly advised.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Dean Lucantonio atf The Lucantonio Family Trust; Second Plaintiff: Dino Lucantonio; First Defendant: Jaime Kleinert; Second Defendant: Otto Stichter; Third Defendant: Darryl Leslie Warren
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Principal Judgment / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Plaintiff's claims dismissed. Judgment for the defendants with costs.
Legal Topics
Architect's Negligence, Solicitor's Negligence, Barrister's Negligence, Misleading and Deceptive Conduct, Professional Standards, Contractual Remedies, Development Approval, Damages, Duty of Care, Causation
Negligence Professional Liability Contract Law Equity Real Property Architect's Negligence Solicitor's Negligence Barrister's Negligence +7 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dean Lucantonio atf The Lucantonio Family Trust

First Plaintiff

Dino Lucantonio

Second Plaintiff

Jaime Kleinert

First Defendant

Otto Stichter

Second Defendant

Darryl Leslie Warren

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Principal Judgment / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the architect was negligent in advising that the building could not be constructed in compliance with development approval plans;
  2. 2 Whether the architect engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct under the Fair Trading Act;
  3. 3 Whether the barrister was negligent in advising or conducting proceedings;

Ratio Decidendi

The architect did not depart from the standards of a reasonably competent and prudent architect and his advice, though ultimately shown to be incorrect due to innovative solutions discovered much later, was a professional opinion genuinely held and with reasonable basis. Neither the barrister nor solicitor acted outside the standard expected of reasonable professionals, and any failure by the solicitor to give timely advice did not cause the loss, as the client would not have adopted a different course if properly advised.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claims dismissed. Judgment for the defendants with costs.

Orders

  • Judgment for the first, second and third defendants against the plaintiff on the plaintiff’s claims, with costs;
  • The cross-claims are dismissed with costs, such costs to form part of the costs recoverable by the relevant defendant/cross-claimant from the plaintiff.