The Court of Appeal upheld the primary judge's findings that the appellant knew at all relevant times he was free to sell his land, and that even if the solicitors had breached a duty to advise him of that freedom, he would not have sold the land because he was unwilling to accept less than $10 million — a price the evidence did not establish was achievable. The loss of opportunity claim also failed at the first (causation) stage under the Mal Owen framework because there was no credible evidence the land was worth the appellant's minimum acceptable price, and the appellant's conduct demonstrated an intent to retain the land for potential rezoning gains rather than sell. The Court confirmed that in breach of fiduciary duty claims based on failure to advise, the plaintiff still bears the onus of establishing causation on a common sense view, and there is no 'equitable by-pass' of that requirement.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.