Hudson Investment Group Ltd v Atanaskovic [2013] NSWSC 64

Hudson Investment Group Ltd v Atanaskovic [2013] NSWSC 64

Hudson failed to prove an express instruction in the terms pleaded that the deed provide for sales of any part of the land. Even if such an instruction was implicit, it was overtaken when Mr Restas expressly drew clause 5 to Mr McLeod's attention and Mr McLeod proceeded with the documents. In any event, the inclusion of clause 5 did not cause Hudson loss: the relevant litigation did not turn on clause 5, Hudson recovered the sale proceeds to which it was entitled under the Entitlement Deed, any delay resulted from Hardboards' default or Hudson's enforcement decisions, and any non-payment of the deposit was not caused by the drafting.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence and Breach of Contract Claim for Damages Against Solicitors / Final Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Verdict for the defendants; plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs.
Legal Topics
['legal Practitioner Retained to Draft Deed' 'duty of Care in Drafting Commercial Deed' 'alleged Breach of Implied Instruction' 'causation of Loss or Damage' 'construction and Effect of Entitlement Deed Clauses']
['torts' 'contract Law' 'professional Negligence'] ['legal Practitioner Retained to Draft Deed' 'duty of Care in Drafting Commercial Deed' 'alleged Breach of Implied Instruction' 'causation of Loss or Damage' 'construction and Effect of Entitlement Deed Clauses']

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

Professional Negligence and Breach of Contract Claim for Damages Against Solicitors / Final Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Atanaskovic Hartnell were instructed that the documentation should provide for Hudson to receive the first $10 million of proceeds of any sale of the land or any part of it.' 'Whether inclusion of clause 5 of the Entitlement Deed, prohibiting partial disposals, was contrary to an express or implied instruction and amounted to negligent drafting or breach of contract.' 'Whether any implied instruction was superseded by later communication drawing attention to clause 5.' 'Whether the drafting of the Entitlement Deed caused Hudson any loss or damage, including delay in receiving sale proceeds or loss connected with the deposit.']

Ratio Decidendi

Hudson failed to prove an express instruction in the terms pleaded that the deed provide for sales of any part of the land. Even if such an instruction was implicit, it was overtaken when Mr Restas expressly drew clause 5 to Mr McLeod's attention and Mr McLeod proceeded with the documents. In any event, the inclusion of clause 5 did not cause Hudson loss: the relevant litigation did not turn on clause 5, Hudson recovered the sale proceeds to which it was entitled under the Entitlement Deed, any delay resulted from Hardboards' default or Hudson's enforcement decisions, and any non-payment of the deposit was not caused by the drafting.

Court Disposition

Verdict for the defendants; plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs.

Orders

  • ['Verdict for the defendants.' "The plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs."]