NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Court of Appeal
CITATION: Doiho Pty Ltd v Bridge Real Estate Pty Ltd & Anor [2005] NSWCA 332
HEARING DATE(S): 21 September 2005
JUDGMENT DATE: 27 September 2005
JUDGMENT OF: Handley JA at 1; Bryson JA at 20; Young CJ in Eq at 21
DECISION: Appeal dismissed with costs
CATCHWORDS: AGENCY - contractual - no common law duty of care to prevent economic loss to principal - NEGLIGENCE - contractual agent owed no duty of care to prevent third party making dishonest use of document - D
LEGISLATION CITED: Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 1941
Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254 CASES CITED: Tai Hing Cotton Mill Ltd v Liu Chong Hing Bank Ltd [1986] AC 80
Doiho Pty Ltd (Appellant) PARTIES: Bridge Real Estate Pty Ltd (First Respondent) Michael Ward (Second Respondent)
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40675 of 2004
N Obrart (Appellant) COUNSEL: G J Parker (Respondents)
Joe Ryan (Appellant) SOLICITORS: Ebsworth & Ebsworth (Respondents)
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC 7791 of 2002
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Sidis DCJ
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL CA 40675 of 2004
HANDLEY JA BRYSON JA YOUNG CJ in Eq
27 SEPTEMBER 2005 DOIHO PTY LTD v BRIDGE REAL ESTATE PTY LTD & ANOR CATCHWORDS
AGENCY – contractual – no common law duty of care to prevent economic loss to principal
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate