Picos v Perez Varela Lawyers
Case
•
[2018] FCCA 646
•15 March 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Picos v Perez Varela Lawyers [2018] FCCA 646
[2018] FCCA 646
15 March 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of *Picos v Perez Varela Lawyers*, the Supreme Court of New South Wales considered a dispute between a former client, Mr Picos, and his former solicitors, Perez Varela Lawyers. Mr Picos sought to recover damages for alleged negligence and breach of contract arising from the conduct of his former solicitors in relation to a property transaction.
The central legal issues before the Court were whether the solicitors had breached their duty of care to Mr Picos, and if so, whether that breach had caused Mr Picos loss. Specifically, the Court had to determine whether the advice provided by the solicitors regarding the sale of Mr Picos's property was negligent, and whether the solicitors had failed to adequately advise Mr Picos on the implications of certain contractual terms.
Judge Street found that while the solicitors had a duty to act with reasonable care and skill, the evidence did not establish that their conduct fell below the standard expected of a reasonably competent solicitor in the circumstances. The Court reasoned that the advice given was consistent with the information available at the time and that Mr Picos had ultimately made his own informed decisions regarding the transaction. Therefore, no breach of duty was established, and consequently, no damages were recoverable.
The central legal issues before the Court were whether the solicitors had breached their duty of care to Mr Picos, and if so, whether that breach had caused Mr Picos loss. Specifically, the Court had to determine whether the advice provided by the solicitors regarding the sale of Mr Picos's property was negligent, and whether the solicitors had failed to adequately advise Mr Picos on the implications of certain contractual terms.
Judge Street found that while the solicitors had a duty to act with reasonable care and skill, the evidence did not establish that their conduct fell below the standard expected of a reasonably competent solicitor in the circumstances. The Court reasoned that the advice given was consistent with the information available at the time and that Mr Picos had ultimately made his own informed decisions regarding the transaction. Therefore, no breach of duty was established, and consequently, no damages were recoverable.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Procedure
-
Negligence & Tort
Legal Concepts
-
Duty of Care
-
Negligence
-
Damages
-
Causation
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
5
Quinn v Overland
[2010] FCA 799
Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd
[1995] HCA 24
McIntosh v Camilla Australia Pty Ltd
[2018] FCCA 239