14.07.2022 Views

LSB July 2022 LR

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

RISK WATCH<br />

“Are you able to confirm that to the best<br />

of your knowledge it [the lease provided to<br />

Maddocks] is an accurate and complete copy<br />

of the lease? (It appears to be, however if for<br />

example there are any side-deeds or variations,<br />

then the document is not ‘complete’).”<br />

The principal director of About Life,<br />

Ms Phillips, read the email at about the<br />

time she was leaving the office to go to her<br />

daughter’s 18 th birthday celebration. The<br />

email did not trigger Ms Phillips’ memory<br />

that in 2014 About Life had in fact entered<br />

into a side-deed with Woolworths which<br />

granted Woolworths a “right of first refusal”<br />

should About Life seek to assign its<br />

leasehold interest in the Double Bay store.<br />

The sale proceeded on the basis that there<br />

were no relevant side-deeds.<br />

Approximately one month later, a<br />

representative of Woolworths asked<br />

Ms Phillips if About Life had sold the<br />

Double Bay store to Harris Farms. This<br />

was when Ms Phillips remembered that<br />

Woolworths had a right of first refusal to<br />

the assignment of the Double Bay lease.<br />

NEGLIGENCE FOUND<br />

The Court found that Ms Phillips’<br />

memory would have been triggered had<br />

proper instructions been taken from<br />

About Life earlier in the transaction rather<br />

than late in the afternoon on the day the<br />

contract of sale was due to be signed. It<br />

was also said by Rees J that<br />

“while, in theory, it was not ‘too late’ for About<br />

Life to act upon [the] request for instruction,<br />

the request was made so late, in urgent<br />

circumstances and inadequately explained such<br />

that it was not understood by the client, and<br />

obviously so. As a consequence Maddocks did<br />

not discharge its duty to the client to protect the<br />

client’s interests in the proposed transaction.”<br />

The Judge was therefore critical of the<br />

rather elliptical way in which the question<br />

of side-deeds was raised, i.e. it was not a<br />

direct question (”Are there any side-deeds?”)<br />

but merely an enquiry as to whether the<br />

entire lease had been provided.<br />

DAMAGES<br />

The damages payable by Maddocks<br />

were assessed at nearly $16m being “the<br />

difference between the trajectory which the company<br />

took, being external administration, and the<br />

trajectory it would have taken if it had entered<br />

into a contract with Woolworths at the outset.<br />

About Life’s damages are the gap between the two<br />

trajectories.”<br />

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE<br />

About Life was found to have failed to<br />

take reasonable care of its own interests<br />

because, of course, the Directors – in<br />

particular Ms Phillips – knew of the sidedeed<br />

and had access to it as part of the<br />

company’s records. Rees J assessed the<br />

company’s contributory negligence at 20%.<br />

Her Honour found that where a<br />

company is proposing to sell a substantial<br />

asset it is reasonable for the company’s<br />

officers to check the company’s records<br />

in respect of that asset to ensure that<br />

the solicitor is provided with accurate<br />

and important details about the asset<br />

in question. Her Honour also found<br />

however that where the client is new<br />

to the solicitor, is giving instructions<br />

on an urgent matter of high value and<br />

importance, is stressed and distracted<br />

(as Ms Phillips was found to have been)<br />

the solicitor should bear greater<br />

responsibility to elicit this information.<br />

Maddocks therefore had to bear 80% of<br />

the loss assessed, around $13m.<br />

CONCLUSION<br />

The judgment, although lengthy<br />

(some 736 paragraphs), will repay<br />

careful consideration by all practitioners<br />

especially as regards the duties imposed<br />

on practitioners dealing with urgent<br />

commercial transactions.<br />

One wonders whether the same result<br />

would have been reached by the Court had<br />

Maddocks’ enquiry regarding any sidedeed<br />

been more directly worded and sent<br />

earlier than the “last minute”. I suspect that<br />

even if the Court found a breach of duty<br />

in those (postulated) circumstances, the<br />

assessment of the contributory negligence<br />

would have been much less favourable to<br />

the client company.<br />

The risk management lessons are<br />

therefore to seek full instructions in clear<br />

and direct terms as soon as possible.<br />

Practitioners who are insured with<br />

the SA Professional Indemnity Insurance<br />

Scheme have access to a number of<br />

document packages — including<br />

documents relating to Commercial Leasing<br />

and the Acquisition and Sale of Businesses<br />

— which provide a good starting point<br />

when seeking instructions in commercial<br />

matters. Risk Management Practice<br />

Packages (lawsocietysa.asn.au)<br />

<strong>July</strong> <strong>2022</strong> THE BULLETIN 33

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!