Blazai Pty Limited v Maley & Ors (trading as Maclarens Solicitors) [2012] NSWSC 1444

Blazai Pty Limited v Maley & Ors (trading as Maclarens Solicitors) [2012] NSWSC 1444

Maclarens were not negligent nor in breach of their contract of retainer; the retainer was limited, and Blazai Pty Limited, through its experienced principal, gave clear instructions including to exchange in absence of deposit. Alleged losses were not caused by any default of Maclarens, and the contract itself was a device to mislead financial institutions, not a bona fide transaction.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the first to fourth defendants
Legal Topics
['negligence' 'professional Negligence' 'contract of Retainer' 'scope of Retainer']
['tort' 'contract'] ['negligence' 'professional Negligence' 'contract of Retainer' 'scope of Retainer']

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 / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Maclarens Solicitors breached their duty of care and contract of retainer in advising Blazai Pty Limited during a commercial property transaction' 'Whether Maclarens were negligent in failing to secure a deposit and personal guarantees before exchange of contracts' 'Whether loss suffered by Blazai Pty Limited was caused by any alleged default of Maclarens']

Ratio Decidendi

Maclarens were not negligent nor in breach of their contract of retainer; the retainer was limited, and Blazai Pty Limited, through its experienced principal, gave clear instructions including to exchange in absence of deposit. Alleged losses were not caused by any default of Maclarens, and the contract itself was a device to mislead financial institutions, not a bona fide transaction.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the first to fourth defendants

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the first to fourth defendants.' "Subject to order (3), plaintiff to pay the first to fourth defendants' costs of proceedings." 'Any party seeking a different costs order must apply in writing within seven days of these reasons.']