Su v So, Verekers Lawyers v So [2010] NSWCA 119

Su v So, Verekers Lawyers v So [2010] NSWCA 119

Mr Su had authority to sign Mr So's name for the sale based on prior practice and absence of timely complaint; finding of deceit and exemplary damages lacked proper assessment of Mr Su's mental state and was set aside. Against Verekers Lawyers, without underlying wrongful conduct by Mr Su, no cause for compensatory or exemplary damages lay. Court allowed both appeals, dismissed proceedings against Verekers, and entered judgment for Mr Su with no order as to costs in the lower court.

Parties
Applicant: Jian Ji Su; Second Applicant: Verekers Lawyers; Respondent: Hip Tong So
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Final Determination
Outcome
Appeals allowed; orders set aside; proceedings against Verekers dismissed; judgment for Mr Su; directions for further costs submissions.
Legal Topics
Deceit, Negligence, Assessment of Damages, Exemplary Damages, Solicitor's Duty of Care, Authority to Transfer Property
Torts Professional Negligence Property Law Civil Procedure Deceit Negligence Assessment of Damages Exemplary Damages +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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jian Ji Su

Applicant

Verekers Lawyers

Second Applicant

Hip Tong So

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Su had authority to sign Mr So's name on sale documents
  2. 2 Whether the elements of the tort of deceit were made out against Mr Su
  3. 3 Whether Verekers Lawyers were negligent in handling the sale and owed a duty of care to Mr So

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Su had authority to sign Mr So's name for the sale based on prior practice and absence of timely complaint; finding of deceit and exemplary damages lacked proper assessment of Mr Su's mental state and was set aside. Against Verekers Lawyers, without underlying wrongful conduct by Mr Su, no cause for compensatory or exemplary damages lay. Court allowed both appeals, dismissed proceedings against Verekers, and entered judgment for Mr Su with no order as to costs in the lower court.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; orders set aside; proceedings against Verekers dismissed; judgment for Mr Su; directions for further costs submissions.

Orders

  • Grant leave to Mr Su to appeal.
  • Order that a notice of appeal be filed within 14 days in respect thereof.