McEvoy Financial Services Pty Limited atf McEvoy Family Trust t/as Kevin McEvoy & Associates v Oldfield & ors, (District Court of NSW, No. 999 of 2006). This matter involved claims for damages for alleged breach of retainer by the auditors of the plaintiff. The damages were pleaded as the amount of professional fees paid by the plaintiffs.
Teachers Health Investments Pty Ltd v Julian [2001] NSWSC 231. This matter involved a professional negligence action against solicitors, accountants and valuers arising a mortgage advance. The matter involved a consideration of contributory negligence and limitations issues as well as apportionment of damage.
Smiles v Moon (Supreme Court of NSW, No. 20817 of 1997). This matter involved claims of negligence in relation to the preparation of the plaintiff’s tax returns.
Lorenzato v Burwood Council and ors. [2020] NSWSC 1659 (23 November 2020). This case involved allegations of negligent misstatement and breach of duty by a local council and a vendor of real property. The matter also involved allegations of professional negligence against the vendor’s solicitor as well as private nuisance by public authority. In relation to the professional negligence claim made against the vendor's solicitor, a question arose as to whether the solicitor exercised reasonable care and skill in obtaining instructions for answers to requisitions. The Court held that negligence had not been established. Applications for special costs orders were also made.
Emrisk Pty Ltd v Cater & Blumer Pty Ltd (2019, District Court of NSW, No. 2018/00145645). This matter involved allegations of breach of duty and negligence by a solicitor. Questions of loss and damage were raised as well as issues of contribution and apportionable claims. The matter also included a contested application to vacate the hearing.
Marc Vella v Greenhalgh and ors (NSW Supreme Court, No. 2016/307255). This matter, the hearing of which commenced in November 2018, alleged a breach of retainer and negligence against solicitors. It was contended that the solicitors failed to act expeditiously to protect the interests of a person by the timely preparation, lodgment and registration of a caveat over a property. The matter involved cross-claims and raised issues of loss.
Cloud Top Pty Limited & Anor v Toma Services Pty Limited & Anor [2008] NSWSC 568. This matter involved a dispute arising from a contract for the sale of hotel real property and business. A question arose as to whether there had been misleading and deceptive conduct and breach of duties in circumstances where inaccurate financial information concerning the business had been given. Issues also arose concerning whether a solicitor had failed to act with reasonable skill, care and diligence.
Janine and Coral Fraser t/as Three Sisters Tea and Coffee Lounge v William Player (District Court of NSW, No: 8 of 2008 - General Division, Lithgow Registry). The dispute in this matter concerned a claim for damages for alleged breach of duty and/or retainer arising out of the Plaintiffs’ purchase of a business. Claims were made against a solicitor who was alleged to have failed to exercise reasonable care in relation to the provision of legal services pursuant to a retainer.
Teachers Health Investments Pty Ltd v Julian [2001] NSWSC 231. This matter involved a professional negligence action against solicitors, accountants and valuers arising in consequence of a mortgage advance. The matter involved a consideration of contributory negligence and limitations issues as well as apportionment of damage.
Zone Developments Pty Ltd v Keller (Supreme Court of NSW, No. 20140 of 2008).
Harley v McDonald (New Zealand) [2001] UKPC 18 (10April 2001). This matter involved an appeal to the Privy Council from the Court of Appeal in New Zealand and it related to a claim against a barrister and an insurer (FAI (NZ) General Insurance. The trial judge had ordered the barrister (and solicitors) to contribute to costs payable by her client. Questions arose as to the jurisdiction to make a costs order against counsel and solicitors.
Bar-Mordecai v Burke (Supreme Court No. 10962 of 2002). These proceedings involved proceedings for contempt against a barrister.
Bar-Mordecai v Whittle (Supreme Court No. 10966 of 2002 and No. 2533 of 2002). These proceedings involved proceedings for contempt against a barrister.
Community Association DP 270076 v Andreones Pty Ltd (in liq), (Supreme Court of NSW, No. 97588 of 2009). This matter involved allegations of negligence against a legal practice.
Stephen Noss & Anor v Howard Hilton & Anor [1997] NSWCA (CA40349/95; COMM.D50261/94). This appeal involved a question of proximity giving rise to a duty of care in circumstances where a solicitor used company funds without its authority.
McLernon v Reliant Building Pty Ltd & Anor (District Court of NSW. (Newcastle). This matter involved allegations of misleading or deceptive or conduct which was likely to mislead or deceive and claims for damages pursuant to sections 236 and 267(4) of the Australian Consumer Law.
Law ats Digirolomo (Supreme Court of NSW, No 6350 of 2008). This case involved a building dispute which centred upon a negligently prepared building certificate being issued. Causation and damages were also in issue.
Ward v D & C Ferguson Pty Ltd (District Court of NSW, No. 32 of 2007 (Nowra)). This matter involved a dispute involving home-owners and a builder certifier who allegedly provided a misleading report prior to the plaintiffs purchasing the property. The claims were in negligence, contract and pursuant to section 52 of the Trade Practices Act.
Noosa Shire Council v JE Farr Pty Ltd & Ors. [2001] QSC 60.This matter involved claims in negligence, breach of contract and misleading and deceptive conduct against engineers. Limitations issues were also raised as well as loss and damage.
RJ Dean-Willcocks as liquidator of Re Navra Group Pty Ltd (in liq), Federal Court of Australia, NSD 1061 of 2015. See also Christopher John Palmer as liquidator of Re Navra Group Pty Ltd (in liq), Federal Court of Australia, NSD 1061 of 2015. A summary of this matter is contained in the Companies and Associations Law – Judicial Advice Applications Practice Area on this web-site. The matter an application by a liquidator for Judicial advice pursuant to section 479(3) of the Corporations Act and/or cl 90-15 – 90-20 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule for approval for an assessment and pay-out scheme for over 100 claimants who had alleged that had been negligently advised by a financial advisory group to make certain investments resulting in them sustaining financial loss.
Stoyef v Masu Financial Management Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 897. This matter involved an application by a representative party, who, together with other group members, were clients of a financial services business conducted by the respondent (Masu) between 2003 and late 2005 and who, in reliance on advice given by Masu, invested in one or more financial products known as "Westpoint Products", and suffered loss as a result. The contention was that Masu acted negligently, in breach of contract and engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct. In addition, there were claims for breach of s 912A Corporations Act. These particular proceedings involved an application to rely upon a proposed further amended statement of claim.
McEvoy Financial Services Club v Oldfield & 15 ors, (District Court 999 of 2006). This case involved a professional negligence claim against an accountant and tax agent. Liability, causation and damage were all in dispute.
Oxs Pty Ltd t/as The Bank Restaurant & Bar v Dornoch Pty Ltd & Anor, (Supreme Court No. 11073 of 2002).
Sibcart Pty Ltd v Conacher Travers Pty Ltd and Ors. (Supreme Court of NSW, No. 20485 of 2008). This matter involved a claim against a fire assessment expert who had been engaged to prepare a bush fire protection assessment report for a proposed development involving a retirement village to be constructed within a bush fire-prone area, as defined under Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2001. The claim against the assessor was in negligence, breach of contract and involved allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct. Questions of causation and damages including loss of a chance to develop the property were also raised as was the issue of whether other persons were concurrent wrongdoer within the meaning of Part 4 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 and/or Part VIA of the Trade Practices Act.
Cloud Top Pty Limited & Anor v Toma Services Pty Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) & Ors [2008] NSWSC 568. This matter involved a dispute concerning a contract of sale relating to a hotel. Allegations of breach of duty of a broker, breach of fiduciary duty and misleading and deceptive conduct together with issues of reliance were also raised. The matter also included an application to vacate the hearing.
Sutton v Mawhinney Insurance Brokers Pty Ltd & Anor (District Court (Coffs Harbour), No. 124 of 1999). This matter involved a claim against a broker in relation to insurance cover for a hotel.
D Capital 2 Pty Ltd v Western and others[2022] NSWSC 1064 (12 August 2022). This expedited matter was heard by Meek J on 11-18 July 2022. The dispute concerned various put and call option deeds relating to a block of 10 residential home units which were to be sold in one line to a purchaser. Relevant interdependent contracts for sale were exchanged with a single conveyancer authorised to liaise with the purchaser and to give permissions and receive notices under deeds. Claims for declaratory relief and damages (including equitable damages) were made in circumstances where the interdependent contracts of sale had been terminated after Notices to Complete had been served and not complied with by the purchaser. Principles regarding electronic conveyancing were raised including the duty to cooperate in the context of PEXA settlement. In addition, questions concerning a conveyancers duty of care (at paragraphs [296]-[306]) were raised as were notices to complete requirements and the availability of equitable remedies.
Minhui Luo t/as Alan Law & Anor ats Cheng Feng Pty Ltd (District Court of NSW 2021/001138561). This matter involved allegations of negligence and breach of retainer by a licensed conveyancer. It raised issues of proportionate liability and contribution by a solicitor.
Minhui Luo t/as Alan Law ats Yanling Zhang (Supreme Court of NSW, 2019/155574). This matter involved allegations of negligence and breach of retainer by a licensed conveyancer. It raised issues of proportionate liability and contribution by a solicitor.
SSE Corporation Pty Ltd v Platinum Conveyancing Services and Anor (Supreme Court of NSW, No2020/00004091). This matter involves allegations of negligence and breach of retainer by a licensed conveyancer. Proportionate liability is also raised.
Xiao Feng Ip v Lisa Chiang and ors (Supreme Court of NSW, No 2018/00312250). This matter raised allegations of negligence against a number of professionals including a licensed conveyancer and solicitors. Issues of proportionate liability were also raised. The matter also involved an application for expedition.
Olsson v Shields and Mark Hanisch t/as Rapid Conveyancing, District Court, No. 2014/138684.These proceedings involved claims for professional negligence against a licensed conveyancer. Limitations issues were raised.
Perpetual Trustee Company Limited & Anor v Peter Ishak [2012] NSWSC 697. This involved allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct against a licensed conveyancer and allegations of false or misleading representations concerning the nature of an interest in land. Issues of causation and duty of care were also raised, as well as proportionate liability.
Benson v MacLachlan t/as Sterling Conveyancers [2001] NSWCA 263. This case involved an appeal of the decision in Benson v MacLachlan t/as Sterling Conveyancers ([2001], District Court No. 4493/98) referred to on this web-site.
Benson v MacLachlan t/as Sterling Conveyancers ([2001], District Court of NSW, No. 4493/98). This matter involved a dispute over a contract for the sale of land and whether a party was liable where an unincorporated company purported to enter into a contract. Significant questions of the duty of care of a licensed conveyancer were raised in the context of whether the conveyancer failed to advise on potential liability and whether there had been a breach of duty. Section 183(7) of the Corporations Law and section 66W of the Conveyancing Act were considered.
Turner & Anor. v Hewson and ors. (District Court of NSW(Newcastle), No 969 of 1999). This matter relevantly involved a cross-claim alleging negligence including failure to exercise due care, diligence and skill against a licensed conveyancer. This particular application involved an application to vacate the hearing. This matter is also referred to under the Practice Area, Practice and Procedure – Vacate hearing.
Amy Rickhuss v The Cosmetic Institute Pty Ltd (in liq) and 19 others (Supreme Court of NSW, No 2017/279308). This matter is a class action in which damages are claimed by the plaintiffs, and on behalf of group members, being individual patients who had breast augmentation surgery on or before 29 October 2017 at identified premises and whose surgery was performed by or with the assistance of one or more of 12 doctors in accordance with an alleged standard approach described in the pleadings as the “One Size Fits All Approach”. Allegations of negligence, breaches ss 60, 61(1) and 61(2) of the Australian Consumer Law in relation to supply of services and allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct have been pleaded. Issues of limitations and non-availability of certain causes of action have also been pleaded in response.
The proceedings were originally set down for a 12–14-week hearing in the Supreme Court of NSW beginning September 2023 but were subsequently vacated in consequence of an appeal to the NSW Court of Appeal concerning, inter alia, an application to declass the proceedings. The decision of the Court of Appeal is to be found at [2023] NSWCA 249. The matter has now been set down for final hearing from April 2024.
Tasjet Property Pty Ltd v 629341555 Pty Ltd and Ian C Campbell Real Estate (Supreme Court of NSW 2020/00095977). This matter involved claims against a seller of property as well as against a real estate agent in which claims of misleading and deceptive conduct were made.
Butcher and Radford v Harkins and Lachlan Elder Realty [2002] NSWCA 237. This case, which ultimately was resolved in the High Court, involved allegations of misleading conduct and the application of certain disclaimers. A question arose as to whether an advertising brochure distributed by a real estate agent conveyed a misrepresentation by their principal only and not by the real estate agent who was merely passing on information.
Kelly v Elsadik & ors: Elsadik v Penrose Properties Pty Ltd T/As Century 21 (District Court of NSW, No. 1565 of 1999). This matter raised allegations of breaches of sections 52 and 53A of the Trade Practices Act, section 83AB of the Property Stock & Business Agents Act as well as claims for contribution and indemnity.
Walker v Charles and Lorraine Wood t/as Blunts The Professionals & Anor (District Court of NSW, No. 8415 of 1999). This matter involved claims in negligence in consequence of injuries sustained on a water slide at an amusement park.
Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd v Casey & Co Valuers Pty Ltd and PricewaterhouseCoopers Legal [2003], District Court No. 3358 of2003. This matter concerned a large number of issues including allegations of negligence and misleading and deceptive conduct of solicitors and valuers. A large amount of expert evidence was called and issues of proportionate liability and contributory negligence were raised.
Teachers Health Investments Pty Ltd v Julian [2001] NSWSC 231. This matter involved a professional negligence action against solicitors, accountants and valuers arising a mortgage advance. The matter involved a consideration of contributory negligence and limitations issues as well as apportionment of damage.
Ferry Boat Pty Ltd v JUA Underwriting Agency Pty Ltd [2008] NSWDC 209. This case involved a consideration of indemnity issues in the context of where an Insurer had denied indemnity and raised non-disclosure issues. A no loss/indemnity defence was also raised.
