Greer v Pickering
Case
•
[2015] NSWSC 1131
•13 August 2015
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Greer v Pickering [2015] NSWSC 1131
[2015] NSWSC 1131
13 August 2015
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Greer v Pickering involved the plaintiff, Greer, who purchased a property from the vendor, Pickering, under the terms of a contract that allowed the vendor to remain as a tenant until death or permanent relocation. The vendor subsequently operated a clandestine methylamphetamine laboratory on the property, necessitating remediation by the plaintiff. The vendor refused to vacate the premises, leading to the plaintiff suing Pickering's solicitor for professional negligence, alleging the solicitor should have included an express term in the contract allowing for eviction. The plaintiff claimed that the alleged negligence caused or contributed to the delay and expense in evicting the tenant. The court had to determine whether the solicitor was negligent, whether the alleged negligence caused or contributed to the delay and expense, and whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent or failed to mitigate loss.
The court found that there was no evidence to establish that the solicitor was asked to include an express term as alleged. The court further found that the solicitor was not negligent as the statutory provision implied a term that would have allowed for the eviction of the tenant. Additionally, causation was not established because the court could not determine whether the alleged negligence contributed to the delay and expense. Finally, the court found that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent and failed to mitigate loss by not taking urgent steps to evict the tenant.
The court held that the claim was apportionable, but no loss was attributable to the solicitor. The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim against the solicitor. The court also held that Part 1 of the Civil Liability Act 2005 (NSW) applied to the claim for breach of retainer, and there was no breach of retainer. Therefore, the court dismissed the claim for breach of retainer. The final order was that the plaintiff's claim against the solicitor was dismissed, and the costs of the proceeding were to be paid by the plaintiff.
The court found that there was no evidence to establish that the solicitor was asked to include an express term as alleged. The court further found that the solicitor was not negligent as the statutory provision implied a term that would have allowed for the eviction of the tenant. Additionally, causation was not established because the court could not determine whether the alleged negligence contributed to the delay and expense. Finally, the court found that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent and failed to mitigate loss by not taking urgent steps to evict the tenant.
The court held that the claim was apportionable, but no loss was attributable to the solicitor. The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim against the solicitor. The court also held that Part 1 of the Civil Liability Act 2005 (NSW) applied to the claim for breach of retainer, and there was no breach of retainer. Therefore, the court dismissed the claim for breach of retainer. The final order was that the plaintiff's claim against the solicitor was dismissed, and the costs of the proceeding were to be paid by the plaintiff.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Tort Law
-
Contract Law
-
Property Law
Legal Concepts
-
Professional Negligence
-
Causation
-
Implied Terms
-
Breach of Retainer
-
Apportionment of Damages
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Greer v Pickering [2015] NSWSC 1131
Most Recent Citation
167 Prospect Highway Pty Ltd v Polyaire Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 1144
Cases Citing This Decision
2
167 Prospect Highway Pty Ltd v Polyaire Pty Ltd
[2025] NSWSC 1144
167 Prospect Highway Pty Ltd v Polyaire Pty Ltd
[2025] NSWSC 1144
Cases Cited
10
Statutory Material Cited
7
Luxton v Vines
[1952] HCA 19
Dare v Pulham
[1982] HCA 70
Dare v Pulham
[1982] HCA 70