NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Loh Min Choo v State of New South Wales [2011] NSWSC 1477 Hearing dates: 14 June 2011 Decision date: 01 December 2011 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Harrison AsJ Decision: (1)I find that the plaintiffs' pecuniary loss, without interest or costs, amounts to $670,960.93. (2)Costs of these proceedings are reserved. (3)The parties are to bring in short minutes in accordance with my directions and make submissions as to the amount of costs of the equity proceedings and costs of these proceedings. Catchwords: LIMITATION - failure to account by real estate agent - claim against the Property Services Compensation Fund - whether application made out of time - when plaintiffs became aware of the failure to account - interpretation of beneficial legislation - whether plaintiffs entitled to interest - how limit on amount recoverable operates when husband and wife claim pecuniary loss - whether limit inclusive of costs Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 Crown Proceedings Act 1988 Legal Practitioners Act 1898 Limitation Act 1969 Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 2002 Property, Stock and Business Agents Bill 2001 Supreme Court Act 1970 Cases Cited: AB v State of Western Australia [2011] HCA 42 AGC v West (1984) 5 NSWLR 301 CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club (1997) 187 CLR 384 Deming No 456 Pty Ltd v Brisbane Unit Development Corporation Pty Ltd (1983) 155 CLR 129 Francis v Law Society of NSW (1982) 2 NSWLR 191 Harris v Commercial Minerals Ltd (1996) 186 CLR 1 I W v City of Perth (1997) 1919 CLR 1 Kyabram Property Investments Pty Limited v Murray [2005] NSWCA 87 Law Society of New South Wales v Glenorcy Pty Ltd (2006) 67 NSWLR 169; [2006] NSWCA 250 Pacific Indemnity Underwriting Agency Pty Ltd v Maclaw No 651 Pty Ltd [2005] VSCA 165 Travel Compensation Fund v Tambree (2006) 224 CLR 632 Van Houten v The Law Society of New South Wales (unreported, NSWSC, 11 December 1991) Texts Cited: New South Wales Legislative Assembly, Parliamentary Debates, (Hansard), 9 May 2002 at 1964 Practice Note SC Gen 16 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Loh Min Loh (First Plaintiff) Lim Teck Beng (Second Plaintiff) State of New South Wales (First Defendant) Director-General of the Department of Services, Technology and Administration (Second Defendant) Representation: A Ogborne (Plaintiffs) B Zipser (Defendants) CFC Lawyers (Plaintiffs) Department of Services, Technology and Administration (Defendants) File Number(s): 2010/149235
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