Scarcella v Lettice [2000] NSWCA 289

Scarcella v Lettice [2000] NSWCA 289

The respondents suffered actual economic loss when they purchased or completed the purchase of the property in 1982 in reliance on the appellant's negligent advice, because they paid more than the property's true value without the legal right-of-way. The defect was not a latent title defect of the kind that postponed accrual until discovery, since normal conveyancing procedures should have revealed it. Accordingly, the cause of action accrued in 1982 and the proceedings commenced in 1994 were statute-barred.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 November 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal in Professional Negligence Proceedings Concerning a Solicitor and Limitation of Actions / Appeal From Judgment of Ireland J in the Supreme Court Common Law Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment for the plaintiffs set aside; judgment entered for the defendant in the action.
Legal Topics
['solicitor Negligence in Conveyancing' 'defect in Title' 'right of Way' 'accrual of Cause of Action in Tort' 'economic Loss' 'latent Defects in Title' 'limitation Act 1969 (nsw)']
['negligence' 'professional Negligence' 'limitation of Actions' 'property Law' 'conveyancing'] ['solicitor Negligence in Conveyancing' 'defect in Title' 'right of Way' 'accrual of Cause of Action in Tort' 'economic Loss' 'latent Defects in Title' 'limitation Act 1969 (nsw)']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal in Professional Negligence Proceedings Concerning a Solicitor and Limitation of Actions / Appeal From Judgment of Ireland J in the Supreme Court Common Law Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondents' negligence claim against their former solicitor was statute-barred under the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW)." 'Whether actual damage was suffered when the respondents completed the purchase in 1982 or only when they discovered in 1994 that they had no right-of-way over lot 61.' 'Whether the defect in title was a latent defect of the kind considered in Christopoulos v Angelos and Registrar-General v Cleaver.' 'What measure of damages would apply if the claim were not statute-barred.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents suffered actual economic loss when they purchased or completed the purchase of the property in 1982 in reliance on the appellant's negligent advice, because they paid more than the property's true value without the legal right-of-way. The defect was not a latent title defect of the kind that postponed accrual until discovery, since normal conveyancing procedures should have revealed it. Accordingly, the cause of action accrued in 1982 and the proceedings commenced in 1994 were statute-barred.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment for the plaintiffs set aside; judgment entered for the defendant in the action.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed with costs.' 'Judgment for plaintiffs set aside and in lieu thereof judgment should be entered for the defendant in the action with costs.' 'The respondents to have a certificate under the Suitors Fund Act.']