Anderson v Edwards [2009] NSWCA 375

Anderson v Edwards [2009] NSWCA 375

The appeal failed because the respondents' loss was suffered when Mr and Mrs Edwards entered the Woolcott Village transaction with rights demonstrably less valuable than they should have been, although the loss could only be assessed after they vacated. The possible alternative retirement village transaction was irrelevant, or in any event the evidence supported an inference that any alternative investment would have been close to the one undertaken. There was no sufficient uncertainty to justify a discount. The appeal was hopeless and was dismissed with indemnity costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal in a Solicitors' Negligence Damages Case / Appeal From a Decision of Schmidt AJ in the Supreme Court Common Law Division; Negligence Was Not Raised on Appeal and Damages and Costs Were Contested
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with indemnity costs.
Legal Topics
["solicitors' Negligence" 'assessment of Damages' 'no Transaction Scenario' 'alternative Transaction Argument' 'causation' 'indemnity Costs']
['damages' 'professional Negligence' 'tort' 'retirement Villages'] ["solicitors' Negligence" 'assessment of Damages' 'no Transaction Scenario' 'alternative Transaction Argument' 'causation' 'indemnity Costs']

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

Civil Appeal in a Solicitors' Negligence Damages Case / Appeal From a Decision of Schmidt AJ in the Supreme Court Common Law Division; Negligence Was Not Raised on Appeal and Damages and Costs Were Contested

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was sufficient evidence before the primary judge to assess damages for breach of duty of care.' 'Whether the respondents failed to prove damages because there was insufficient evidence to assess damages on a no-transaction scenario.' 'Whether damages should have been discounted for uncertainties about potential different terms at another retirement village.' 'Whether the appeal should be dismissed with indemnity costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the respondents' loss was suffered when Mr and Mrs Edwards entered the Woolcott Village transaction with rights demonstrably less valuable than they should have been, although the loss could only be assessed after they vacated. The possible alternative retirement village transaction was irrelevant, or in any event the evidence supported an inference that any alternative investment would have been close to the one undertaken. There was no sufficient uncertainty to justify a discount. The appeal was hopeless and was dismissed with indemnity costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with indemnity costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with indemnity costs.']