Fussell v Hanrahan t/as Dignan & Hanrahan Solicitors [2024] NSWSC 1388

Fussell v Hanrahan t/as Dignan & Hanrahan Solicitors [2024] NSWSC 1388

Judgment for the defendants. Although the first defendant breached his duty of care by failing to advise the first plaintiff adequately about clause 33.2 and the life estate, and the third defendant did not breach his duty, no breach was causative of any loss because the evidence did not establish that the vendor would have agreed to delete or amend clause 33.2 or relinquish the life estate, and the plaintiffs were not in a position to settle the contract before the vendor's death. The plaintiffs failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, any lost opportunity caused by breach.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Bernard James Fussell; Second Plaintiff: Blue Star Trading Corporation Pty Ltd; First Defendant: Bruce Vincent Hanrahan t/as Dignan & Hanrahan Solicitors; Second Defendant: David James Duncombe t/as Dignan & Hanrahan Solicitors; Third Defendant: Steven Brown t/as Etienne Lawyers
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Principal Judgment / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for defendants; costs to defendants
Legal Topics
Solicitors' Duty of Care, Breach of Duty, Causation, Life Estate, Contract Rescission, Damages, Reliance Damages
Negligence Professional Liability Property Law Solicitors' Duty of Care Breach of Duty Causation Life Estate Contract Rescission +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 6 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bernard James Fussell

First Plaintiff

Blue Star Trading Corporation Pty Ltd

Second Plaintiff

Bruce Vincent Hanrahan t/as Dignan & Hanrahan Solicitors

First Defendant

David James Duncombe t/as Dignan & Hanrahan Solicitors

Second Defendant

Steven Brown t/as Etienne Lawyers

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Principal Judgment / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first defendant breached duty of care by failing to advise on clause 33.2 and life estate
  2. 2 Whether the third defendant breached duty of care by failing to advise on clause 33.2 and arrange settlement prior to vendor's death
  3. 3 Whether any breach caused loss to the plaintiffs

Ratio Decidendi

Judgment for the defendants. Although the first defendant breached his duty of care by failing to advise the first plaintiff adequately about clause 33.2 and the life estate, and the third defendant did not breach his duty, no breach was causative of any loss because the evidence did not establish that the vendor would have agreed to delete or amend clause 33.2 or relinquish the life estate, and the plaintiffs were not in a position to settle the contract before the vendor's death. The plaintiffs failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, any lost opportunity caused by breach.

Court Disposition

Judgment for defendants; costs to defendants

Orders

  • Judgment for the first and second defendants.
  • Judgment for the third defendant.