Reported Decision:
(2002) 56 NSWLR 127
Court of Appeal
CITATION: Bebonis & Anor v Angelos & Ors; Christopoulos & Anor v Angelos & Ors [2003] NSWCA 13 HEARING DATE(S): 26 and 27 November 2002 JUDGMENT DATE:
10 February 2003JUDGMENT OF: Handley JA at 1; Beazley JA at 113; Heydon JA at 114 DECISION: See orders 1-10 inclusive para 112 of judgment CATCHWORDS: CONVEYANCING - requisition on title - duty of vendor and vendor's solicitor - NEGLIGENCE - answer to requisition on title - whether duty of care - PLEADING - amendment to raise statute barred cause of action LEGISLATION CITED: Real Property Act CASES CITED: Christopoulos v Kells (1988) 13 NSWLR 541
Christopoulos v Angelos (1996) 41 NSWLR 700
The Liverpool (No 2) [1963] P. 64
Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167
Edward Wong Finance Co Ltd v Johnson Stokes & Master [1984] AC 296
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465
Palmer v Johnson (1884) 13 QBD 351 CA
Midland Bank Trust Ltd v Hett Stubbs & Kemp [1979] Ch 384
El-Kandari v J R Brown & Co [1988] QB 665 CA
Connell v Odlum [1993] 2 NZLR 257 CA
Gran Gelato Ltd v Richcliff (Group) Ltd [1992] Ch 560
Brown v Raphael [1958] Ch 636 CA
William Sindell plc v Cambridgeshire County Council [1994] 1 WLR 1016 CA
Kirby v Sanderson Motors Pty Ltd (2001) 54 NSWLR 135 CA
Water Board v Moustakas (1988) 180 CLR 491
Konskier v B Goodman Ltd [1928] 1 KB 421 CA
Gallo v Dawson (1990) 64 ALJR 458
McGee v Yeomans [1977] 1 NSWLR 273
Minister for Environmental & Planning v San Sebastian Pty Limited [1983] 2 NSWLR 268
Proctor v Jetway Aviation Pty Limited [1984] 1 NSWLR 166
Toubia v Schwenke (2002) 54 NSWLR 46
Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100
Gran Gelato Ltd v Richcliff (Group) Ltd [1992] Ch 560
The Mutual Life & Citizens Assurance Company Ltd v Evatt (1968) 122 CLR 556
Pilkington v Wood [1953] Ch 770
Walker v Geo H Medlicott & Son [1999] 1 WLR 727 CAPARTIES :
PETER BEBONIS & ANOR v NICHOLAS P ANGELOS & ORS
THEODOROS CHRISTOPOULOS & ANOR v NICHOLAS P ANGELOS & ORSFILE NUMBER(S): CA 40271/01; 41039/99 COUNSEL: M D Young (For Bebonis)
D Davies SC (For Angelos)
B Connell (For Christopoulos)SOLICITORS: Bayside, Ramsgate (For Bebonis)
Phillips Fox (For Angelos)
Selby Levitt (For Christopoulos)
LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC 25277/87 LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :Balla DCJ
40271/01
41039/99
HANDLEY JA
BEAZLEY JA
HEYDON JA
10 February 2003
PETER BEBONIS & ANOR v NICHOLAS P ANGELOS & ORS
THEODOROS CHRISTOPOULOS & ANOR v NICHOLAS P ANGELOS & ORS
CONVEYANCING – requisition on title – duty of vendor and vendor’s solicitor
NEGLIGENCE – answer to requisition on title – whether duty of care
PLEADING – amendment to raise statute barred cause of action
B purchased a property in 1976 subject to a…
Continue reading Bebonis v Angelos
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Bebonis v Angelos [2003] NSWCA 13
- Case
- [2003] NSWCA 13
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of *Bebonis v Angelos* concerned a dispute between a vendor and a purchaser arising from a contract for the sale of land. The purchaser, Mr Bebonis, sought to recover damages from the vendor, Mr Angelos, and his solicitor, alleging negligence in the vendor's response to a requisition on title. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.
The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the vendor and his solicitor owed a duty of care to the purchaser in relation to the answer provided to a requisition on title, and if so, whether that duty had been breached. A further issue concerned the court's power to allow an amendment to the pleadings to raise a cause of action that was statute-barred.
The Court of Appeal considered the established principles of conveyancing and negligence. It was held that a vendor and their solicitor owe a duty of care to the purchaser to provide a truthful and accurate answer to a requisition on title. This duty arises from the contractual relationship and the solicitor's professional obligations. The court found that the vendor's solicitor had failed to exercise reasonable care and skill in investigating the truth of the vendor's assertions in response to the requisition, thereby breaching the duty of care owed to the purchaser. Regarding the amendment to the pleadings, the court applied the principles governing the amendment of pleadings, particularly in circumstances where a statute-barred claim is sought to be introduced, balancing the interests of justice and the need to avoid prejudice to the opposing party.
The Court of Appeal made orders allowing the appeal in part, setting aside the judgment of the primary judge and remitting the matter for a new trial on the issue of damages. The court also made specific orders concerning the costs of the appeal and the proceedings at first instance.
The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the vendor and his solicitor owed a duty of care to the purchaser in relation to the answer provided to a requisition on title, and if so, whether that duty had been breached. A further issue concerned the court's power to allow an amendment to the pleadings to raise a cause of action that was statute-barred.
The Court of Appeal considered the established principles of conveyancing and negligence. It was held that a vendor and their solicitor owe a duty of care to the purchaser to provide a truthful and accurate answer to a requisition on title. This duty arises from the contractual relationship and the solicitor's professional obligations. The court found that the vendor's solicitor had failed to exercise reasonable care and skill in investigating the truth of the vendor's assertions in response to the requisition, thereby breaching the duty of care owed to the purchaser. Regarding the amendment to the pleadings, the court applied the principles governing the amendment of pleadings, particularly in circumstances where a statute-barred claim is sought to be introduced, balancing the interests of justice and the need to avoid prejudice to the opposing party.
The Court of Appeal made orders allowing the appeal in part, setting aside the judgment of the primary judge and remitting the matter for a new trial on the issue of damages. The court also made specific orders concerning the costs of the appeal and the proceedings at first instance.
Orders
Orders of the court
See orders 1-10 inclusive para 112 of judgment
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.