Claudio Grizonic v Maurice Blackburn Cashman Pty Limited [2008] NSWSC 76

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Claudio Grizonic v Maurice Blackburn Cashman Pty Limited [2008] NSWSC 76

HEARING DATE(S) : 29/10/07, 30/10/07,31/10/07,1/11/07,21/11/07

JUDGMENT DATE : 13 February 2008

JURISDICTION : Common Law

JUDGMENT OF : Barr J at 1

DECISION : I direct the entry of a verdict and judgment for the defendant. I order the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs.

CATCHWORDS : COSTS - damages sought for negligent legal advice - whether legal representation engaged - whether breach of duty of care - whether breach of express or implied term of contract or warranty - whether breach of obligations under the Trade Practices Act

LEGISLATION CITED : Trade Practices Act 1974

PARTIES : Claudio Grizonic Maurice Blackburn Cashman Pty Limited

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20164/2005

COUNSEL : M Willmott SC and C Locke (Plaintiff) A S McGrath and J S Williams (Defendant)

SOLICITORS : Oliveri Lawyers (Plaintiff) Mallesons Stephen Jaques (Defendant)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

GRAHAM BARR J

13 FEBRUARY 2008

20164/2005 CLAUDIO GRIZONIC v MAURICE BLACKBURN CASHMAN PTY LIMITED

JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff, Claudio Grizonic, sues the defendant, Maurice Blackburn Cashman Pty Limited trading as Maurice Blackburn Cashman Lawyers for damages. The plaintiff and Suzanne Ranken Suttor were joint owners of a house premises at 9 Magdala Road East Ryde (the property) and partners in a business that conducted a restaurant called Da Valentinos (the business). They also had a common interest in a business carried out by a company call Find-a-Flat Pty Limited. The plaintiff brought proceedings in the Equity Division against Ms Suttor as first defendant and Find-a-Flat Pty Limited as second defendant, seeking orders including orders to dissolve the partnership in the business and to sell the property. The proceedings were numbered 6141 of 2003. I shall call them the Equity proceedings. The plaintiff was represented in those proceedings by a barrister, Mr G C Jones, without the medium of a solicitor, and Ms Suttor was represented by Mr CJ Dimock, solicitor, and counsel. On 19 December 2003, on the advice of their respective legal advisers, the plaintiff and Ms Suttor signed a document called 'Heads of Agreement,' the substance of which was as follows - 1. The property known as 9 Magdala Rd, East Ryde (the property) is to be sold by auction. The parties will use their best endeavours to have such auction occur within eight weeks from the date of this agreement. 2. From the proceeds of the sale of the property the following payments will be made: (i) payment of any outstanding mortgage to RAMS Home Loans. (ii) payment of all the agents' fees and fees incidental to the sale of the property. (iii) payment of any outstanding council/water rates and other outstanding charges. (iv) 50% of the proceeds to the plaintiff and 50% of the proceeds to the first defendant. (v) from the proceeds given to the plaintiff there is to be paid to the first defendant a sum equal to 50% of costs incurred in repairing the property up to a limit of $5000. 3. The business known as Da Valentinos (the business) is to be sold. From the proceeds of the sale of the business there is to be paid: (i) all outstanding accounts incurred on behalf of the partnership; (ii) 50% of the proceeds to the plaintiff and 50% of the proceeds to the first defendant. (iii) from the proceeds given to the first defendant there is to be paid the plaintiff a sum equal to 50% of partnership debts paid by the plaintiff from his own personal funds. 4. Each party will enter into a deed releasing the other from any claim under: (a) Partnership Act (b) Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (c) Family Provisions Act 5. The parties consent to orders 1, 2, 3, and 5 of the Short Minutes of Order attached to this Heads of Agreement. 6. That the plaintiff be permitted to draw $1000 per week from the takings of the business and the first defendant be permitted to draw $450 per week from the takings of the business. 7. That the matter be relisted before the vacation judge in the week commencing 22 December 2003.