Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: About Life Pty Ltd v Maddocks Lawyers [2021] NSWSC 1370 Hearing dates: 2 – 5 March 2021; 8 – 12 March 2021; 15 – 19 March 2021; 24 – 26 March 2021; last submissions received 19 April 2021 Date of orders: 28 October 2021 Decision date: 28 October 2021 Jurisdiction: Equity - Real Property List Before: Rees J Decision: Judgment for damages for professional negligence, being $13 million payable to the client company and $344,000 payable to the company’s directors.
Catchwords: PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE – solicitors – retained to act for company on sale of business including assignment of lease – company had granted a right of first refusal to Woolworths – sophisticated client – urgent transaction – client in financial distress – solicitor gave ‘high level comments’ – comprehensive instructions not sought until shortly before exchange – enquired by email on number of matters including whether there were any “side deeds” – client’s instructions non-responsive – contracts exchanged – Woolworths injuncts sale – proceeds of sale received 6 months later – company goes into administration.
WORDS AND PHRASES – ‘side deed’ – see [67].
DAMAGES – loss of chance at [505]-[512] – time at which damages should be assessed at [624] – non-binding indicative offers as evidence of value at [632] – costs as damages at [643] – whether onus on plaintiff to show reasonableness of settlement – whether necessary for law firm to plead failure to mitigate.
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE – corporate memory and document storage – client failed to take reasonable care by checking records in respect of an asset before, or while, instructing solicitors on sale of the asset – damages reduced by 20%.
CONCURRENT WRONGDOERS – whether breach of director’s duties in expanding the company – principles at [681] – no breach of director’s duties.
DUTY OF CARE TO THIRD PARTIES – whether solicitor also owed duty of care to client’s directors – principles and case law review at [702]-[711] – client and directors’ interests coincident – client and directors’ liability to disappointed purchaser was the same – directors entitled to be reimbursed by company had it not gone into external administration – directors’ liability alone arose from company going into external administration
MISLEADING AND DECEPTIVE – whether law firm liable to directors in misleading and deceptive conduct – principles at [727]-[731] – whether incomplete advice is “conduct”.
Legislation Cited: Australian Consumer Law, ss 18, 236, 237
Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), ss 5A, 5B, 5C, 5D, 5R, 5S, 35, Pt 4
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), s 4
Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW), s 52A
Conveyancing (Sale of Land) Regulation 2010 (NSW), reg 16; sch 3, cl 8, pt 1
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 180
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1965 (NSW), s 9
Cases Cited: ACN 092 675 164 Pty Ltd v Suckling (2018) 56 VR 448; [2018] VSC 620
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read About Life Pty Ltd v Maddocks Lawyers and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2021] NSWSC 1370
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether the law firm breached their duty of care, whether the plaintiff's failure to provide comprehensive instructions constituted contributory negligence, and whether the law firm owed a duty of care to the directors of the plaintiff company. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the law firm was liable for misleading and deceptive conduct due to incomplete advice.
The court found that the law firm had breached their duty of care by not seeking comprehensive instructions from the plaintiff and failing to provide sufficient advice. The plaintiff's failure to provide comprehensive instructions and check records was considered contributory negligence, reducing the damages by 20%. The court held that the law firm did not owe a duty of care to the directors of the plaintiff company as their interests were coincident with those of the company. The court also found that the law firm was not liable for misleading and deceptive conduct as incomplete advice did not constitute "conduct" within the meaning of the law.
The court assessed the damages for the loss of the chance to sell the business to Woolworths and found that the law firm should be liable for costs as damages. The court held that the plaintiff did not need to show the reasonableness of their settlement, and it was not necessary for the law firm to plead failure to mitigate. The court ordered the law firm to pay damages to the plaintiff.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.