Pekar v Rickards Legal (No 3)

In *Pekar v Rickards Legal (No 3)*, the Supreme Court of Queensland considered a dispute between the plaintiff, Mr. Pekar, and the defendant law firm, Rickards Legal. The proceedings concerned allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct and breach of contract arising from the firm's conduct in relation to a property transaction.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether Rickards Legal had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of the *Trade Practices Act 1974* (Cth) (now the *Competition and Consumer Act 2010* (Cth)) and the *Property Law Act 1974* (Qld), and whether the firm had breached its contractual obligations to Mr. Pekar. The Court was required to determine the nature and extent of the representations made by the firm and whether these representations were false or misleading, and to assess whether the firm had acted with due care and skill in its professional capacity.

Judge Hartnett found that Rickards Legal had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by representing that certain conditions of a contract for the sale of property would be satisfied when they were not. The Court applied the principles of statutory interpretation to the relevant provisions of the *Trade Practices Act* and the *Property Law Act*, focusing on the objective meaning of the representations made and the likely effect on a reasonable consumer. The Court also considered the implied terms of a contract for legal services, including the duty to exercise reasonable care and skill. The Court concluded that the firm had breached its contractual obligations by failing to ensure the conditions were met and by not adequately advising Mr. Pekar of the risks involved.

The Court ordered that Rickards Legal pay damages to Mr. Pekar in an amount to be assessed.