Client Sues Legal Firm For £4870 Damages

Press, Volume C, Issue 29474, 28 March 1961, Page 8

Client Sues Legal Firm For £4870 Damages

(New Zealand Press Association)

WKLUNGTON, March 27. The hearing of a claim against a legal firm for £4870 damages for alleged negligence in respect of a lease of land was began today in the Supreme Court at Wellington.

TJie claim is by Stanley Keith Rowe, a farmer, of Ohariu Valley, against Bell. GulU\ and Company, solicitors? of Wellington. The Chief Justice (Sir Harold Barrowclough) is on the Bench. Mr G. P. Barton is appearing for Rowe, and Mr R. G. Collins for the defendant.

Outlining the plaintiffs case, Mr Barton said that to succeed his client had to establish three things—that the relationship between solicitor and client existed, that the defendant firm had been negligent in the discharge of its duty to be skilful and careful, and that the damages claimed flowed from a breach of that duty. Counsel said the defendant had joined issue on each of those three elements. The plaintiff had been a client of the defendant firm continuously from 1955 to 1960. In 1957 agreement was reached between Howe and two brothers named Alcock, who owned an adjoining property, for the plaintiff to lease their land at £4OO a year for five years, with the right of renekral for another five years. Mr Barton said the Alcocks insisted that the lease be prepared at the office of their own solicitor, the late Mr W G. L. Mellish. Mr Mellish rang Rowe to say the lease had been prepared, and the main points in it were agreeable to Rowe, except one clause specifying the type of

manure to be applied to the land.

Later Rowe told a partner of the defendant firm that the lease was ready, and asked him to look at it At an interview with that partner reference was made by Rowe to the necessity to be 100 per cent. sure.

"After perusing the document, the partner said. That seems O.K. to me'," said Mr Barton.

No mention was made during the interview about getting the consent of the Land Valuation Court Rowe occupied the land, but because the consent of the Land Valuation Court had not been obtained, the whole transaction was deemed to be unlawful and to have no effect. It was impossible now to remedy the position by obtaining the Court’s consent, because of deterioration in the relationship between the parties.

The hearing will continue tomorrow.