Tasmanian Sandstone Quarries Pty Ltd v Legalcom Pty Ltd

Tasmanian Sandstone Quarries Pty Ltd appealed to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia against a decision of a single judge who had dismissed its claim for damages against Legalcom Pty Ltd. The claim alleged that Legalcom, a solicitor, had breached its duty of care by failing to advise or arrange for a pre-settlement inspection of business assets that Tasmanian Sandstone Quarries had contracted to purchase.

The central legal issues before the Full Court were whether the primary judge had erred in their approach to determining the duty and scope of Legalcom's duty of care, and whether the judge was correct in concluding that there had been no breach of duty, either in contract or in tort. The court also considered whether a contract of retainer had been established and whether the primary judge had erred in assessing loss and damage.

The Full Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the primary judge's approach to articulating the duty and scope of duty was appropriate. The evidence supported the finding that the retainer was of a limited nature, and that Legalcom, through its solicitor John Goldberg, had not acted unreasonably in failing to advise about or arrange for a pre-settlement inspection. The court held that the judge's findings of fact were open on the evidence, and that a duty of care was owed in both contract and tort, with the extent and reach of that duty being the same. The judge's assessment of loss and damage was also found to be without error.