Bassal v Savills (NSW) Pty Limited [2019] NSWSC 696

Bassal v Savills (NSW) Pty Limited [2019] NSWSC 696

The plaintiffs failed to establish a breach of contract or duty of care by Savills: Savills did not owe a 'special' duty to achieve a particular outcome (e.g., 90% occupancy with specific tenant mix) and performed its duties under the ELAA with reasonable skill and care. Expert evidence did not demonstrate breach of professional standards, and even if breach were established, causation of loss could not be proved, as multiple extrinsic factors (market conditions, GFC, JV partners' decisions) severed causal nexus. No damages awarded.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil (contract and Tort) / Final Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the defendant
Legal Topics
['joint Venture Agreements' 'exclusive Leasing Agency Agreement' 'implied Duty of Care and Skill' 'professional Negligence' 'causation' 'economic Loss']
['contracts' 'negligence'] ['joint Venture Agreements' 'exclusive Leasing Agency Agreement' 'implied Duty of Care and Skill' 'professional Negligence' 'causation' 'economic Loss']

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 (contract and Tort) / Final Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Savills breached contract or duty of care under the Exclusive Leasing Agency Agreement' 'Whether Savills failed to introduce appropriate tenants or breached implied term of care, skill and diligence' 'Whether Savills failed to implement an adequate leasing strategy' 'Whether breach caused damage to plaintiffs']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs failed to establish a breach of contract or duty of care by Savills: Savills did not owe a 'special' duty to achieve a particular outcome (e.g., 90% occupancy with specific tenant mix) and performed its duties under the ELAA with reasonable skill and care. Expert evidence did not demonstrate breach of professional standards, and even if breach were established, causation of loss could not be proved, as multiple extrinsic factors (market conditions, GFC, JV partners' decisions) severed causal nexus. No damages awarded.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the defendant

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the defendant' "The plaintiffs are to pay the defendant's costs"]