Permanent Custodians Limited v Geagea (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 562

Permanent Custodians Limited v Geagea (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 562

The solicitor breached the warranty of authority by representing authority to act and direct disbursement on behalf of all mortgagors when such authority was not possessed. This representation was also misleading or deceptive conduct within the meaning of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) as it was made in trade or commerce in relation to a business loan. The damage suffered by the plaintiff arose from reliance on this representation, and the fourth, fifth and sixth defendants are accordingly liable. Proportionate liability issues relating to other actors are reserved for further submissions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Principal Judgment / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff against the fourth, fifth and sixth defendants, with costs; leave to address on damages and costs applications reserved.
Legal Topics
['mortgage Fraud' "solicitor's Breach of Authority" 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'breach of Warranty of Authority' 'negligence' 'proportionate Liability']
['common Law' 'consumer Protection' 'property Law'] ['mortgage Fraud' "solicitor's Breach of Authority" 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'breach of Warranty of Authority' 'negligence' 'proportionate Liability']

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

Principal Judgment / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the solicitor breached a warranty of authority in representing all mortgagors' 'Whether the solicitor engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct' 'Whether there was negligence' 'Causation of loss and the implications for damages including proportionate liability']

Ratio Decidendi

The solicitor breached the warranty of authority by representing authority to act and direct disbursement on behalf of all mortgagors when such authority was not possessed. This representation was also misleading or deceptive conduct within the meaning of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) as it was made in trade or commerce in relation to a business loan. The damage suffered by the plaintiff arose from reliance on this representation, and the fourth, fifth and sixth defendants are accordingly liable. Proportionate liability issues relating to other actors are reserved for further submissions.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff against the fourth, fifth and sixth defendants, with costs; leave to address on damages and costs applications reserved.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the plaintiff against the fourth, fifth and sixth defendants.' "The fourth, fifth and sixth defendants shall pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to these proceedings." 'Leave is granted to the fourth, fifth and sixth defendants to address in writing, within twenty-one (21) days of the date...