MR GS v MR TM
| Jurisdiction | New Zealand |
| Judgment Date | 20 January 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] NZLCRO 3 |
| Date | 20 January 2012 |
| Docket Number | LCRO 133/2011 |
| Court | Legal Complaints Review Officer |
CONCERNING An Application For Review Pursuant To Section 193 Of The Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006
And
CONCERNING A Determination of The Southland Standards Committee
[2012] NZLCRO 3
LCRO 133/2011
Application for review of Standards Committee decision declining to uphold a complaint against legal practitioner — respondent practitioner acted for applicant in respect of a property transaction — property had a concrete pole which supplied electricity and telecommunication to neighbouring properties — had to be removed at applicant's expense — Certificate of Title (CT) and Land Information Memorandum Report (LIM report) failed to mention existence of pole but it was disclosed in Council's geotechnical report — photos showing pole on cover of geotech report and property advertisement (Trade me link) — whether there was a professional failure on part of practitioner in not discovering existence of pole — whether existence of pole was discoverable by usual enquiries undertaken by a lawyer in relation to property purchases.
In accordance with s.213 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 copies of this decision are to be provided to:
Mr GS as the Applicant
Mr TM as the Respondent
The Southland Standards Committee
The New Zealand Law Society
Mr GS (the Applicant) sought a review of a Standards Committee decision that declined to uphold his complaint against Mr TM (the Practitioner).
The Practitioner had acted for the Applicant when he purchased a vacant section from the [North Island] City Council. The property had a concrete pole situated on the section and near to the edge of the footpath. The Certificate of Title (CT) for that property did not record any easement in relation to that pole.
The Applicant wished to build a house on the site and had obtained a copy of the LIM report which he forwarded to the Practitioner's office together with the TradeMe hyperlink relating to the sale advertisement of the land. The [North Island] City Council had also provided to the Applicant a geotechnical report that he also sent on to the Practitioner's firm.
The purchase file was handled by the Practitioner's legal executive, Ms P, who undertook the usual enquiries, and eventually attended to settlement of the purchase.
The Applicant was subsequently advised by his architect that the concrete pole would need to be removed in order to site the garage. The Applicant made enquiries and learned that the pole supplied electricity and telecommunication lines to the neighbouring properties. He was also informed that since the pole was situated on private land that he now owned, that any costs associated with its removal were his responsibility. It seems he was also informed by the Council that had the matter been brought to the Council's attention prior to settlement, the Council would have met the costs of removing it. The cost was assessed at around $20,000.
The Applicant brought the matter to the attention of Ms P at the Practitioner's office, and sought clarification of the costs (if any) for the firm's involvement with the issue. He was given a fees estimate of not less than $5,000.00. He informed Ms P that he was disappointed at the fee estimate and referred to the fact that no advice had been given concerning legal issues surrounding the pole. In his view the law firm had failed to identify and alert him to the absence of a legal easement and the implications for him if he purchased the land. He referred to the pole showing in the LIM report, this apparently referring to the Geotechnical report which referred to the pole in Appendix C. He considered that the law firm had an obligation to resolve the matter at their cost.
He also stated that he had spoken to several lawyers who had said that the Practitioner ought to have ensured that an easement was in place at the time of his purchase.
The Practitioner responded that no easement relating to the pole appeared on the CT, and that they had no knowledge of the pole or of any issues relating to its ownership. The Practitioner considered that inquiring into legal aspects of the pole was not a matter falling within the matters on which they had been instructed.
The Applicant eventually made a complaint with the New Zealand Law Society concerning the Practitioner's “poor service”, in particular to the failure to have identified and alerted him to the absence of a standard legal easement for the pole, and the implications of legal ownership for going forward. The outcome he sought was compensation in the sum of $20,900.00 for the cost of the work to shift it.
The Standards Committee declined to uphold the complaint. The Committee was of the view that the Applicant must have been aware of the existence of the pole from his own inspection of the land, but had not mentioned this to his legal advisor. The Committee noted that no legal easements or restrictions were registered against the title of the property, and the LIM itself was silent as to the existence of the pole. The Committee noted that from the outset the law firm had been very specific in advising the Applicant that the firm was not going to comment on any aspects of the Geotechnical report as it “did not have the expertise to comment on the geotechnical report included in the LIM. You will need to refer that to an engineer for comment.” The Committee's view was that there were no legal issues to be explored, and there was no incompetence or negligence on the part of the Practitioner.
In his review application the Applicant submitted that the Standards Committee had failed to fully consider all of the relevant information he had provided. In particular he asked that the Legal Complaints Review Officer should...
To continue reading
Request your trial