Richtoll Pty Ltd v WW Lawyers (in Liquidation) Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 438

Richtoll Pty Ltd v WW Lawyers (in Liquidation) Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 438

The defendant solicitors' retainer for each transaction was expressly limited to preparing loan documentation and attendance on settlement, expressly excluding due diligence. The evidence did not establish a general retainer or that the defendants undertook responsibility for financial vetting or due diligence. For both loans, while the court accepted that a further ASIC search was required before drawdown in the Sanctuary loan and that the receipt of the borrower's financial difficulties was known in the Tamarama loan, causation was not established: plaintiffs in each case would have made the loans regardless. On this basis, there was no actionable breach or loss recoverable in contract...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Principal Judgment / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Verdict and judgment for the defendant.
Legal Topics
['legal Practitioners—retainer' "solicitor's Duty of Care" 'negligence' 'limited Retainer' 'due Diligence Obligations' 'causation' 'civil Liability Act 2002 (nsw)' 'contributory Negligence' 'proportionate Liability']
['professional Negligence' 'contract Law' 'tort Law'] ['legal Practitioners—retainer' "solicitor's Duty of Care" 'negligence' 'limited Retainer' 'due Diligence Obligations' 'causation' 'civil Liability Act 2002 (nsw)' 'contributory 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 / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendant solicitor owed and breached duties of care and/or contract to the client lender in relation to two loan transactions, including obligation to perform due diligence, advise of borrower's financial position, and alert to company borrower's receivership status; whether such breaches were causative of plaintiffs’ losses."]

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant solicitors' retainer for each transaction was expressly limited to preparing loan documentation and attendance on settlement, expressly excluding due diligence. The evidence did not establish a general retainer or that the defendants undertook responsibility for financial vetting or due diligence. For both loans, while the court accepted that a further ASIC search was required before drawdown in the Sanctuary loan and that the receipt of the borrower's financial difficulties was known in the Tamarama loan, causation was not established: plaintiffs in each case would have made the loans regardless. On this basis, there was no actionable breach or loss recoverable in contract...

Court Disposition

Verdict and judgment for the defendant.

Orders

  • ['Verdict and judgment for the defendant.' "The plaintiffs are to pay the defendant's costs of these proceedings."]