Ligon Sixty-Three Pty Ltd v ClarkeKann

Ligon Sixty-Three Pty Ltd brought an action against ClarkeKann seeking damages for losses and costs incurred in relation to a failed sub-lease assignment. The plaintiff had followed the defendant’s advice to sue the purchaser in a contract to sell its sub-lease, which resulted in a dismissed claim. The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s sub-lessor, Hamilton Island Enterprises Ltd, was a concurrent wrongdoer under the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) and that the plaintiff’s application to join the sub-lessor as a defendant should be dismissed. The plaintiff also sought to join another legal firm, Beazley Singleton Lawyers, as a defendant, alleging that the firm had negligently failed to advise the plaintiff against prosecuting the failed claim. The court had to determine whether the sub-lessor could be considered a concurrent wrongdoer and whether the legal firm, which was immune from suit, could be joined as a defendant under the Civil Liability Act.

The court examined whether section 121 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) imposed an obligation on the sub-lessor or gave rise to implied contractual obligations or a common law duty of care. The court found that a lessee’s covenant not to assign without consent did not imply a covenant by the lessor not to unreasonably withhold consent or impose liability on the lessor. The court held that section 121 acted as a proviso on the lessee’s covenant not to assign without consent, ensuring that consent would not be arbitrarily withheld. The court also held that the sub-lessor’s alleged unreasonable refusal of consent to assign the sub-lease would not have prevented the plaintiff from assigning it, and therefore, the sub-lessor was not a concurrent wrongdoer. The plaintiff’s application to join the sub-lessor as a defendant was dismissed. Furthermore, the court found that a party that was never liable for the loss or damage could not be a concurrent wrongdoer under the Civil Liability Act. The application to join the legal firm as a defendant was also dismissed.

The court dismissed the plaintiff’s applications to join the sub-lessor and the legal firm as defendants in the proceeding. The court struck out certain paragraphs of the defendant’s amended defence. The court held that the sub-lessor was not a concurrent wrongdoer and that the legal firm, being immune from suit, could not be joined as a defendant. The plaintiff was not entitled to join the sub-lessor or the legal firm as defendants in the proceeding. The court's decision clarified the legal obligations of lessors and lessees under the Property Law Act and the application of the Civil Liability Act in relation to concurrent wrongdoers.