S&P Gomes Pty Ltd ta Cohuna Hotel Motel v Sundar ta Sun Legal [2025] NSWSC 24

S&P Gomes Pty Ltd ta Cohuna Hotel Motel v Sundar ta Sun Legal [2025] NSWSC 24

The first defendant was retained as solicitor to advise on the purchase, failed in his duty to advise on building and pest reports and critical contract terms, and this breach caused loss as the company would not have entered the contract had they been properly advised. The proper assessment of damages was diminution in value plus costs that would not have been incurred (e.g., stamp duty and allowable interest). The claim against the Council failed as there was no relevant duty of care owed to a purchaser in the plaintiffs’ position under the facts and law.

Parties
First Plaintiff: S&P Gomes Pty Ltd ta Cohuna Hotel Motel; Second Plaintiff: Paul Gomes; First Defendant: Mohan Sundar ta Sun Legal; Second Defendant: Gannawarra Shire Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Negligence / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for first plaintiff against first defendant. Judgment for first defendant against second plaintiff. Judgment for second defendant against plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
Solicitor's Duty of Care, Scope of Retainer, Contributory Negligence, Limitation of Liability, Causation, Loss Assessment, Pure Economic Loss, Duty of Care (council)
Negligence Professional Negligence Solicitor's Duty of Care Scope of Retainer Contributory Negligence Limitation of Liability Causation Loss Assessment +2 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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S&P Gomes Pty Ltd ta Cohuna Hotel Motel

First Plaintiff

Paul Gomes

Second Plaintiff

Mohan Sundar ta Sun Legal

First Defendant

Gannawarra Shire Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Negligence / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What was the scope of the first defendant's (solicitor's) retainer?
  2. 2 Did the first defendant provide proper advice to the plaintiffs regarding building/pest inspections and contract terms?
  3. 3 Did the Council owe a duty of care to the plaintiffs as later purchasers?

Ratio Decidendi

The first defendant was retained as solicitor to advise on the purchase, failed in his duty to advise on building and pest reports and critical contract terms, and this breach caused loss as the company would not have entered the contract had they been properly advised. The proper assessment of damages was diminution in value plus costs that would not have been incurred (e.g., stamp duty and allowable interest). The claim against the Council failed as there was no relevant duty of care owed to a purchaser in the plaintiffs’ position under the facts and law.

Court Disposition

Judgment for first plaintiff against first defendant. Judgment for first defendant against second plaintiff. Judgment for second defendant against plaintiffs.

Orders

  • Judgment for the first plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $1,216,615.17.
  • Judgment for the first defendant against the second plaintiff.