Schacht v Bruce Lockhart Thompson and Dennis Michael Staunton (trading as Staunton and Thompson Lawyers) (No. 3)

The case of Schacht v Bruce Lockhart Thompson and Dennis Michael Staunton (trading as Staunton and Thompson Lawyers) (No. 3) involved a claim of professional negligence against the defendants, who were the solicitors retained by the plaintiff to draft a Financial Agreement and a Deed related to his marriage. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had failed to ensure the Financial Agreement complied with section 90G(1)(b) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), and that the Deed was also defective. The Federal Magistrates Court was tasked with determining whether the defendants breached their duty of care and whether the plaintiff suffered any loss or damage as a result.

The court had to decide if the plaintiff had adequately pleaded loss or damage arising from the alleged breach in 2002, and whether the defendants were correct in asserting that the plaintiff did not establish any loss or damage. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the defendants breached their duty of care in 2003, and if the reliance on section 5O of the Civil Liability Act 2002 was valid in relation to the 2003 breach. The court also had to assess the damages, if any, that the plaintiff was entitled to claim.

The court found that the plaintiff was indeed entitled to assert loss or damage caused by the 2002 breach, as the Financial Agreement was non-binding and the plaintiff had settled family law proceedings on terms less favourable to him than the original agreement. The court ruled that the defendants had breached their duty of care in 2002 and that the reliance on section 5O concerning the 2003 breach was unsuccessful. Consequently, the plaintiff was awarded damages for the breach of the 2002 retainer. The court then assessed the damages and delivered a verdict in favour of the plaintiff.

The final orders included the determination that the defendants were liable for damages due to the breach of duty of care in 2002, and the court ordered the defendants to pay the assessed damages to the plaintiff. The court did not find the defendants liable for any breach concerning the 2003 retainer, and thus no damages were awarded in relation to that aspect of the case.