Taylor v Gould

[2011] QSC 203

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Taylor v Gould & Ors [2011] QSC 203

PARTIES:

SYLVIA PAMELA TAYLOR
(plaintiff)
v
ROBERT JOHN GOULD
(first defendant)
and
MARK LEONARD SEABROOK
(second defendant)
and
ANTHONY JAMES TAYLOR
(third defendant)

FILE NO/S:

5838/09

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

21 July 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 and 20 May 2011

JUDGE:

Dalton J

ORDER:

1.  Judgment for the first defendant against the plaintiff.
2.  Proceeding against the second defendant dismissed.

3.  Judgment for the plaintiff against the third defendant
     in the sum of $250,000, together with simple interest at
     10 per cent per annum from 18 July 2004.

CATCHWORDS:

NEGLIGENCE – CONTRACT – SOLICITOR’S RETAINER – VICARIOUS LIABILITY – OSTENSIBLE AGENCY

Dal Pont, Law of Agency (2^nd ed, 2008)
P S Atiyah, Vicarious Liability in the Law of Torts (1967)
Salmond, Law of Torts (1^st ed, 1907)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 8(1), r 371(2)(f)

Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd v Producers & Citizens Co-operative Assurance Co of Australia Ltd (1931) 46 CLR 41
Deveigne & Anor v Askar [2007] NSWCA 45
Dubai Aluminium v Salaam & Ors [2002] UKHL 48, 28
Ingot Capital Investments Pty Ltd v Macquarie Equity Capital Market Ltd [2008] NSWCA 206
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Lloyd v Grace, Smith & Co [1911] 2 KB 489
Macquarie Bank Limited v Lin [2002] 2 Qd R 188, 192
New South Wales v Lepore (2002-2003) 212 CLR 511, 536
Pacific Carriers Ltd v BNP Paribas (2004) 218 CLR 451
Pegang Mining Co Limited v Choong Sam [1969] 2 MLJ 52, 56
Perpetual Trustees Australia Limited v Schmidt & Anor [2010] VSC 67
Scott v Davis (2000) 204 CLR 333
Sweeney v Boylan Nominees Pty Ltd (2006) 226 CLR 161

COUNSEL:

S Gerber for the plaintiff
S Shearer for the first defendant
No appearance for the second defendant
No appearance for the third defendant

SOLICITORS:

Lillas & Loel for the plaintiff
Compass Legal Solutions for the first defendant

1. DALTON J:  The plaintiff sought to make the following case.  Until 18 July 2003, she owned one significant asset, an unencumbered home in Kennedy Drive, Tweed Heads.  She agreed to sell it to her brother, the third defendant, for $930,000.  She was to receive $680,000 on settlement, and later, when her brother had constructed units on Kennedy Drive, the balance, $250,000.  On 15 July 2003, the plaintiff contracted to buy another home, at Staatz Court, Tallebudgera, for $490,000.  She intended to pay all that price from the initial proceeds ($680,000) of the sale of Kennedy Drive.  At her brother’s suggestion, Compass Legal Solutions, a legal practice run by the first defendant, was nominated as her solicitor on the contract to buy Staatz Court.  On 18 July 2003, her brother introduced her to Mark Seabrook, the second defendant.  Her brother told her Mr Seabrook was a solicitor.  He was not.  The plaintiff’s case was…