Patterson & Anor v Mamou (t/as De Novo Conveyancing) [2024] NSWDC 47

Patterson & Anor v Mamou (t/as De Novo Conveyancing) [2024] NSWDC 47

The conveyancer breached her duty of care by failing to disclose the existence and effect of special condition regarding unauthorised building works to the plaintiffs before contract exchange, and the plaintiffs would not have proceeded with purchase had disclosure occurred; damages are appropriately measured by the cost of rectification, subject to proportionate allocation between conveyancer (30%) and building inspector (70%).

Parties
First Plaintiff: Mr Gary Patterson; Second Plaintiff: Ms Rachael McGregor; Defendant: Ms Nadiah Mamou trading as De Novo Conveyancing
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence Claim / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiffs
Legal Topics
Professional Negligence, Duty of Care, Breach of Duty, Causation, Proportionate Liability, Measure of Damages, Failure to Mitigate, Economic Loss, Property Damage
Negligence Tort Law Conveyancing Professional Negligence Duty of Care Breach of Duty Causation Proportionate Liability +4 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 6 Authorities cited 37 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Gary Patterson

First Plaintiff

Ms Rachael McGregor

Second Plaintiff

Ms Nadiah Mamou trading as De Novo Conveyancing

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Professional Negligence Claim / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conveyancer failed to disclose special condition regarding unauthorised works
  2. 2 Whether the defendant breached her duty of care
  3. 3 Whether harm was sustained

Ratio Decidendi

The conveyancer breached her duty of care by failing to disclose the existence and effect of special condition regarding unauthorised building works to the plaintiffs before contract exchange, and the plaintiffs would not have proceeded with purchase had disclosure occurred; damages are appropriately measured by the cost of rectification, subject to proportionate allocation between conveyancer (30%) and building inspector (70%).

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiffs

Orders

  • Damages assessed at $43,800
  • Parties to confer on further orders; plaintiffs to submit draft orders within 7 days