Byblos Building Co Pty Ltd v DARLANE Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 85 min read

BYBLOS BUILDING CO PTY LTD -v- DARLANE PTY LTD & ORS [1999] WASC 248



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[1999] WASC 248
Case No:CIV:2999/199126 JULY, 13, 16 - 20 AUGUST & 19 SEPTEMBER 1999
Coram:STEYTLER J6/12/99
49Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Claim against each of the defendants dismissed
PDF Version
Parties:BYBLOS BUILDING CO PTY LTD
DARLANE PTY LTD
JACKSON McDONALD (A FIRM)

Catchwords:

Torts
Negligence
Real estate agent
Turns on its own facts
Torts
Negligence
Solicitors
Turns on its own facts
Torts
Negligence
Measure of damages
Turns on its own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Case References:

Baltic Shipping Co v Dillon (1993) 176 CLR 344
Baulkham Hills Private Hospital Pty Ltd v GR Securities Pty Ltd (1986) ANZ Conv Rep 681
Burns v MAN Automotive (Aust) Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 653
C Czarnikow Ltd v Koufos [1969] 1 AC 350
Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd (1991) 174 CLR 64
Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd v Peat Marwick Hungerfords (1997) 188 CLR 241
Hungerfords v Walker (1989) 171 CLR 125
March v E & M H Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506
Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353
Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1
Pagnan SpA v Feed Products Ltd [1987] 2 Lloyd's Rep 601
Sinclair, Scott & Co Ltd v Naughton (1929) 43 CLR 310
Sykes v Midland Bank Executor and Trustee Co Ltd [1971] 1 QB 113
Tern Minerals NL v Kalbara Mining NL (1990) 3 WAR 486
Waimond Pty Ltd v Byrne (1989) 18 NSWLR 642
Wenham v Ella (1972) 127 CLR 454
Woodside Offshore Petroleum Pty Ltd v Atwood Oceanics Inc [1986] WAR 253

Amadio Pty Ltd v Henderson (1998) 81 FCR 149
Ardlethan Options Ltd v Easdown (1915) 20 CLR 285
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v XIVth Commonwealth Games (1988) 18 NSWLR 540
B Seppelt & Sons Ltd v Commissioner for Main Roads (1975) 1 BPR 9147
Barrier Wharfs Ltd v W Scott Fell & Co Ltd (1908) 5 CLR 647
Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson (1993) 43 FCR 1
Belmont Finance Corporation v Williams Furniture Ltd (No 2) [1980] 1 All ER 393
C H R Salvesen & Co v Rederi Aktiebolaget Nordstjernan [1905] AC 302
Citicorp Australia Ltd v O'Brien (1996) 40 NSWLR 398
Copping v ANZ McCaughan Ltd (1997) 67 SASR 525
Covacevich v Thomson (1988) Aust Torts Rep 67,370
Cusmano v Pinner (1998) 157 ALR 61
Dixon v Winch [1900] 1 Ch 736
Edgington v Fitzmaurice [1885] 29 Ch D 459
El Ajou v Dollar Land Holdings Plc [1994] 2 All ER 685
Entwells Pty Ltd v National & General Insurance Co Ltd (1991) 6 WAR 68
Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon [1976] QB 801
Fox v Everingham (1983) 76 FLR 170
Gallagher v Carman [1990] Aust Torts Rep 67,655
Gates v City Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 1
Georgieff v Athans (1981) 26 SASR 412
Gipps v…
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Byblos Building Co Pty Ltd v DARLANE Pty Ltd 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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[1999] WASC 248
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Byblos Building Co Pty Ltd initiated legal proceedings against Darlane Pty Ltd, a real estate agent, and Jackson McDonald, a firm of solicitors, seeking damages for alleged negligence and breaches of contract related to a commercial property lease. Byblos claimed that the defendants failed to properly investigate the financial stability of the prospective lessee, Kerangle Pty Ltd, and did not recommend obtaining a guarantee to protect against potential financial difficulties. The case hinged on whether the defendants owed a duty of care to Byblos and whether they breached any contractual obligations or made negligent misrepresentations. The court found that Byblos was aware of Kerangle's identity and financial standing, thereby negating the need for further investigation or recommendation from the defendants. Additionally, the court held that there was no special relationship of proximity or reliance that would impose a duty of care on the defendants. Consequently, the court dismissed Byblos' claims against both defendants, ruling that Byblos failed to prove any actionable negligence or breach of contract.

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.