Rahme v Satouris [2018] NSWSC 1753

Rahme v Satouris [2018] NSWSC 1753

Mrs Rahme did not become a client of B & K until after completion of the Deed of Sale on 9 December 2010; therefore, B & K and Mr Khoury did not owe her any fiduciary duty prior to that time and did not act negligently or unconscionably. Mrs Rahme was properly advised by her independent solicitor, Mr Soulos, and the cost agreements were not unjust. The plaintiffs have not established any liability on the part of B & K or Mr Khoury.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Legal Topics
['breach of Fiduciary Duty' 'negligence' 'breach of Contract' 'undue Influence' 'proportionate Liability' 'contributory Negligence' 'cost Agreements' 'assignment of Causes of Action' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'contracts Review Act' 'fiduciary Obligations']
['solicitors Negligence' 'contract' 'equity'] ['breach of Fiduciary Duty' 'negligence' 'breach of Contract' 'undue Influence' 'proportionate Liability' 'contributory Negligence' 'cost Agreements' 'assignment of Causes of Action' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'contracts Review Act' 'fiduciary Obligations']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Did the defendant solicitors owe a fiduciary duty to the first plaintiff arising out of a solicitor-client relationship?' 'Did the defendants breach fiduciary obligations in entering into cost agreements with the first plaintiff and taking security over her property?' 'Did the defendants give negligently wrong advice as to the prospects of the proceedings and the effectiveness of the assignment?' 'Did the defendants act unconscionably or exert undue influence?' 'Did the plaintiffs suffer loss or damage as a result of any wrongful conduct by the defendants?' 'Were concurrent wrongdoers involved?' 'Did contributory negligence arise?']

Ratio Decidendi

Mrs Rahme did not become a client of B & K until after completion of the Deed of Sale on 9 December 2010; therefore, B & K and Mr Khoury did not owe her any fiduciary duty prior to that time and did not act negligently or unconscionably. Mrs Rahme was properly advised by her independent solicitor, Mr Soulos, and the cost agreements were not unjust. The plaintiffs have not established any liability on the part of B & K or Mr Khoury.

Court Disposition

Orders

  • []