This Action involved a tripartite property transaction in which the vendor sold the property to the Defendant, who sold it on to the Plaintiff, but the title was transferred directly from the vendor to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff commenced the Action against the Defendant claiming default in the payment due. The Defendant denied the allegations, pleading that the Plaintiff did not disclose certain deficiencies in the environmental reports. The Defendant also counterclaimed against, among others, their transactional solicitor alleging breach of contract and breach of duty of care. The solicitor applied for a Summary Dismissal of the Counterclaim as against him.

On the issue of breach of duty, Justice Goss held that there was conflicting evidence which rendered the matter a triable issue. On the issue of the environmental reports, Justice Goss held that there was evidence relevant to the level of care and skill of the solicitor, rendering the issue triable. The solicitor argued further that the claim against him was statute barred. Her Ladyship opined that the date upon which the limitation period started to run was not plain and obvious, which made the issue triable.