PPK Willoughby Pty Ltd v Baird [2020] NSWSC 1757

PPK Willoughby Pty Ltd v Baird [2020] NSWSC 1757

The plaintiff's claim failed because, on the pleaded and conducted case, the correct assessment of loss was not the Potts v Miller difference between purchase price and actual value at acquisition but the overall result of the land purchase, development and sale. That transaction involved both burdens and benefits. Since the plaintiff completed the development and sold the properties at a profit, it was not worse off than if it had not entered the transaction and therefore established no recoverable loss caused by the defendants' misleading conduct or alleged negligence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceedings for Professional Negligence and Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Arising From Solicitors' Due Diligence Advice on a Land Purchase and Development / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the defendants with costs
Legal Topics
["solicitors' Retainer and Due Diligence" 'flood Control Restrictions Affecting Land' 'section 149(2) Certificates' 'assessment of Loss on Purchase of Land for Development and Resale' 'application of Potts V Miller' 'benefits and Burdens of a Transaction']
['civil Procedure' 'professional Negligence' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'damages' 'pure Economic Loss' 'property Development'] ["solicitors' Retainer and Due Diligence" 'flood Control Restrictions Affecting Land' 'section 149(2) Certificates' 'assessment of Loss on Purchase of Land for Development and Resale' 'application of Potts V Miller' 'benefits and Burdens of a Transaction']

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

Civil Proceedings for Professional Negligence and Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Arising From Solicitors' Due Diligence Advice on a Land Purchase and Development / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendants' due diligence report was misleading and deceptive by indicating that the land was unaffected by flood control problems." 'Whether the defendants were negligent in failing to obtain up to date s 149(2) certificates before exchange of contracts.' 'Whether the plaintiff would have purchased the property if correctly advised about flood control restrictions.' 'Whether the plaintiff suffered recoverable loss where the completed development was sold at a profit.' 'Whether Potts v Miller supplied the correct method for assessing loss on the purchase of land intended for development and resale.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's claim failed because, on the pleaded and conducted case, the correct assessment of loss was not the Potts v Miller difference between purchase price and actual value at acquisition but the overall result of the land purchase, development and sale. That transaction involved both burdens and benefits. Since the plaintiff completed the development and sold the properties at a profit, it was not worse off than if it had not entered the transaction and therefore established no recoverable loss caused by the defendants' misleading conduct or alleged negligence.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the defendants with costs

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the defendants with costs']