Abu-Mahmoud v Consolidated Lawyers Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 547

Abu-Mahmoud v Consolidated Lawyers Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 547

Mr Kassem owed the plaintiff a solicitor's duty of care and gave the restructure advice. That advice was negligent because it failed to warn that the ATO was likely to be able to pursue directors personally for GST-related liabilities and that St George Bank would likely act on an event of default if Fairchild entered voluntary administration or liquidation. The negligent restructure advice caused the plaintiff's guarantee liability to crystallise and caused recoverable financial loss. The alleged caveat-related breaches were not established, and contributory negligence was not proved.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 May 2015
Procedural Posture
TORTS – Professional Negligence – Solicitor / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff in an amount to be calculated.
Legal Topics
['solicitor Client Retainer' 'restructure Advice' 'causation of Financial Loss' 'contributory Negligence' 'guarantees' 'caveats and Leasehold Interests' 'damages']
['torts' 'professional Negligence' "solicitors' Negligence"] ['solicitor Client Retainer' 'restructure Advice' 'causation of Financial Loss' 'contributory Negligence' 'guarantees' 'caveats and Leasehold Interests' 'damages']

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

TORTS – Professional Negligence – Solicitor / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the existing solicitor-client retainer extended to advice about restructuring Fairchild's affairs to address an ATO liability." 'Whether Mr Kassem gave the restructure advice alleged by the plaintiff.' "Whether the restructure advice was negligent and in breach of the solicitor's duty of care." "Whether alleged advice or failures to advise concerning Mr Antar's caveat and lease were negligent." "Whether any breach of duty caused the plaintiff's losses, including liability under the St George Bank guarantee and loss of equity in properties." 'Whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent.']

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Kassem owed the plaintiff a solicitor's duty of care and gave the restructure advice. That advice was negligent because it failed to warn that the ATO was likely to be able to pursue directors personally for GST-related liabilities and that St George Bank would likely act on an event of default if Fairchild entered voluntary administration or liquidation. The negligent restructure advice caused the plaintiff's guarantee liability to crystallise and caused recoverable financial loss. The alleged caveat-related breaches were not established, and contributory negligence was not proved.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff in an amount to be calculated.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the plaintiff in an amount to be calculated.' 'Plaintiff to file and serve proposed short minutes of order, any motion seeking an order for costs different from that proposed, and any affidavit and submissions in support of that motion by Monday 1 June 2015.' 'Defendants to file and serve proposed...