Rahme v Benjamin & Khoury Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCA 211

Rahme v Benjamin & Khoury Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCA 211

B&K owed Mrs Rahme fiduciary duties at the time of her entry into the September and October Costs Agreements and the associated equitable charges. B&K breached these duties by acting in circumstances of conflict and failing to ensure Mrs Rahme gave fully informed consent, as she did not receive meaningful, independent advice—particularly concerning the prospects of the litigation. Mr Khoury did not personally owe a fiduciary duty. Defences of contributory negligence and proportionate liability were not available to B&K against the breach of fiduciary duty claim.

Parties
First Appellant: Dana Rahme; Second Appellant: Gabriel Rahme; First Respondent: Benjamin & Khoury Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Dieb P Khoury
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Fiduciary Duties, Solicitors' Duties, Costs Agreements, Contracts Review Act, Contributory Negligence, Proportionate Liability
Equity Civil Liability Fiduciary Duties Solicitors' Duties Costs Agreements Contracts Review Act Contributory Negligence Proportionate Liability

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dana Rahme

First Appellant

Gabriel Rahme

Second Appellant

Benjamin & Khoury Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Dieb P Khoury

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did B&K owe fiduciary duties to Mrs Rahme at relevant times?
  2. 2 Did B&K breach the fiduciary duties that it owed to Mrs Rahme?
  3. 3 Did Mr Khoury owe fiduciary duties to Mrs Rahme at relevant times?

Ratio Decidendi

B&K owed Mrs Rahme fiduciary duties at the time of her entry into the September and October Costs Agreements and the associated equitable charges. B&K breached these duties by acting in circumstances of conflict and failing to ensure Mrs Rahme gave fully informed consent, as she did not receive meaningful, independent advice—particularly concerning the prospects of the litigation. Mr Khoury did not personally owe a fiduciary duty. Defences of contributory negligence and proportionate liability were not available to B&K against the breach of fiduciary duty claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part

Orders

  • Appeal allowed in respect of the dismissal of Mrs Rahme's claim against Benjamin & Khoury Pty Ltd.
  • Appeal dismissed in relation to the rejection of Mrs Rahme's claim against Mr Dieb Khoury.