Thomson v Golden Destiny Investments Pty Ltd (No 3)

In this case, the plaintiff sought to establish that the defendant’s refusal to remove a caveat constituted a wrongful act, warranting compensation for the loss incurred. The defendant had lodged a caveat over the plaintiff's property, which led to a delay in the sale process. The plaintiff alleged that this delay caused them to miss out on the opportunity to purchase an alternative property. The dispute came before the court to determine the extent of the loss attributable to the defendant's actions and whether the plaintiff had suffered a loss of a chance to acquire an alternative property. The court needed to decide if the loss was causally linked to the defendant’s refusal to remove the caveat and if the lost opportunity held any value in a legal sense.

The legal issues before the court revolved around the quantification of loss in cases involving the wrongful lodging of a caveat and whether the plaintiff's loss of a chance to purchase an alternative property could be attributed to the defendant's actions. The court examined the principles of causation and the value of a lost chance in the context of real property disputes. The plaintiff argued that the delay caused by the caveat was the direct cause of their inability to purchase the alternative property, and as such, the defendant should be held liable for any consequential loss. The defendant contested that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the lost opportunity was a direct result of their actions and that even if it were, the value of such a lost chance could not be quantified.

The court found that the plaintiff had demonstrated on the balance of probabilities that the delay caused by the defendant's refusal to remove the caveat was the cause of their missed opportunity to purchase the alternative property. However, the court also held that the lost opportunity itself did not constitute a loss of some value, as it was speculative and could not be quantified with certainty. Therefore, while the causation was established, the court concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to compensation for the lost opportunity. The decision underscored the complexities involved in attributing value to a lost chance in real property disputes and the importance of clear evidence in establishing such claims.

The court's final orders were that the defendant's refusal to remove the caveat constituted a wrongful act, but the plaintiff was not entitled to compensation for the loss of a chance to purchase an alternative property. The court determined that the loss of a chance, while causally linked to the defendant's actions, did not amount to a loss of some value and thus did not warrant compensation. The court left open the possibility for further claims if the plaintiff could provide more concrete evidence of the value of the lost opportunity in future proceedings.