CHICK AND CHICK v BLACKWELL & ANOR [2013] NZHC 1525

CHICK AND CHICK v BLACKWELL & ANOR [2013] NZHC 1525

Court held first defendant had capacity to understand the general nature of the 2004,2005 and 2007 transactions and the transactions were not unconscionable; Edmonds Judd breached professional duties by acting for both parties and failing to give adequate independent advice or to record/confirm advice, and those breaches caused measurable loss to the first defendant; plaintiffs entitled to specific performance against the first defendant; first defendant entitled to damages against Edmonds Judd for losses caused by solicitor breaches.

Citation
[2013] NZHC 1525
Parties
Plaintiff: Leith Roger Chick; Plaintiff: Rosemary Chick; First Defendant: Ross Winston Blackwell; Second Defendant/third Party: Edmonds Judd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
24 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Property/contract/tort/equity / Judgment at Trial
Outcome
Specific performance ordered in favour of plaintiffs against first defendant; plaintiffs' claim against second defendant/third party dismissed; judgment entered for first defendant against second defendant/third party in damages; costs reserved
Legal Topics
Capacity to Contract, Unconscionable Bargain, Specific Performance, Conflict of Interest, Independent Legal Advice, Causation, Limitation
Contract Property Equity Tort Professional Negligence Trusts and Fiduciary Duty Capacity to Contract Unconscionable Bargain +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leith Roger Chick

Plaintiff

Rosemary Chick

Plaintiff

Ross Winston Blackwell

First Defendant

Edmonds Judd

Second Defendant/third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Property/contract/tort/equity / Judgment at Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether first defendant had capacity to enter 2004,2005,2007 transactions
  2. 2 Whether transactions were unconscionable bargains/special disadvantage
  3. 3 Whether solicitors Edmonds Judd breached duties by acting for both sides and failing to advise or obtain independent advice

Ratio Decidendi

Court held first defendant had capacity to understand the general nature of the 2004,2005 and 2007 transactions and the transactions were not unconscionable; Edmonds Judd breached professional duties by acting for both parties and failing to give adequate independent advice or to record/confirm advice, and those breaches caused measurable loss to the first defendant; plaintiffs entitled to specific performance against the first defendant; first defendant entitled to damages against Edmonds Judd for losses caused by solicitor breaches.

Court Disposition

Specific performance ordered in favour of plaintiffs against first defendant; plaintiffs' claim against second defendant/third party dismissed; judgment entered for first defendant against second defendant/third party in damages; costs reserved

Orders

  • Order for specific performance: first defendant to settle sale of property 'Haupouri' on terms of the option
  • Plaintiffs' claim against Edmonds Judd (second defendant/third party) dismissed