Williamson v Carneys Lawyers [2015] NSWSC 1080

Williamson v Carneys Lawyers [2015] NSWSC 1080

The plaintiff failed to prove breach because the Court accepted that Mr Meakes advised him to make inquiries of the Council, neighbours and local area about matters affecting surrounding properties, and the retainer and duty of care did not require the solicitor to conduct those inquiries or check that the plaintiff had done so. The plaintiff also failed to prove causation because he knew of the quarry protest and would have purchased Reevesdale regardless. In any event, he failed to prove recoverable loss because the valuation evidence showed Reevesdale was worth more than the purchase price at the relevant time and the claimed later losses were not caused by the defendants' conduct.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Common Law Proceeding for Damages for Professional Negligence, Breach of Retainer and Statutory Claims Concerning a Rural Conveyance / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the first and third defendants; costs ordered against the plaintiff unless a written application for a different order was made within seven days.
Legal Topics
["solicitor's Duty in Conveyancing" 'rural Property Purchase' 'proposed Quarry Development on Neighbouring Land' 'causation' 'measure of Damages for Property Purchase' 'remoteness of Damage']
['tort' 'professional Negligence' 'contract' 'consumer Protection' 'damages'] ["solicitor's Duty in Conveyancing" 'rural Property Purchase' 'proposed Quarry Development on Neighbouring Land' 'causation' 'measure of Damages for Property Purchase' 'remoteness of Damage']

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

Common Law Proceeding for Damages for Professional Negligence, Breach of Retainer and Statutory Claims Concerning a Rural Conveyance / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first and third defendants failed to advise the plaintiff to make inquiries of the Council and neighbours about proposed developments on surrounding properties before purchasing Reevesdale.' "Whether the solicitor's retainer or duty of care required the defendants to conduct those inquiries themselves or to check that the plaintiff had conducted them." 'Whether alleged representations by silence were made under the Trade Practices Act or the Fair Trading Act.' 'Whether any alleged breach caused the plaintiff to purchase Reevesdale or to suffer loss.' 'Whether the plaintiff suffered recoverable damages having regard to Potts v Miller.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to prove breach because the Court accepted that Mr Meakes advised him to make inquiries of the Council, neighbours and local area about matters affecting surrounding properties, and the retainer and duty of care did not require the solicitor to conduct those inquiries or check that the plaintiff had done so. The plaintiff also failed to prove causation because he knew of the quarry protest and would have purchased Reevesdale regardless. In any event, he failed to prove recoverable loss because the valuation evidence showed Reevesdale was worth more than the purchase price at the relevant time and the claimed later losses were not caused by the defendants' conduct.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the first and third defendants; costs ordered against the plaintiff unless a written application for a different order was made within seven days.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the first and third defendants.' "Unless a written application is made to my associate within seven days for a different order, order the plaintiff to pay the first and third defendants' costs of the proceedings."]