Shields v NatLaw Pty Ltd & Anor (Civil Dispute)

The matter before the Tribunal involved the applicant, Shields, suing NatLaw Pty Ltd and its employee, a conveyancing lawyer, for professional negligence. The applicant purchased a forester’s cottage from the 1950s and alleged that the conveyancing lawyer failed to emphasise the need for an asbestos report, which the applicant claims resulted in significant loss when asbestos was later discovered in the property. The central issue for the Tribunal was to determine whether the conveyancing lawyer breached the duty of care owed to the applicant by not highlighting the necessity of an asbestos report and whether the applicant's alleged loss was a direct result of this failure.

The Tribunal assessed the legal responsibilities of the conveyancing lawyer in providing advice regarding potential risks associated with the property. The key consideration was whether the conveyancer had a duty to advise on the need for an asbestos report and if such advice was outside the standard scope of conveyancing services. The Tribunal examined the circumstances surrounding the transaction, the common practices in the industry, and the specific risks associated with the property in question. The Tribunal concluded that while the conveyancer should have reasonably considered the risk of asbestos, advising on the need for an asbestos report was not within the standard scope of the services provided. Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the applicant had not demonstrated a causal link between the conveyancer's advice and the subsequent loss incurred.

In light of the findings, the Tribunal dismissed the application. The Tribunal held that the conveyancer did not breach the duty of care owed to the applicant by not emphasising the need for an asbestos report. The Tribunal also determined that the applicant had not sustained a loss that could be directly attributed to the conveyancer's advice. The scope of the conveyancer's liability was confined to the standard services provided, and the applicant's claims fell outside this scope. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered that the application be dismissed.