Gu v Kam & Beadman Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 1350

The Court found that Mr Kam did not give the negligent advice alleged by the plaintiff regarding stamp duty liability. Instead, Mr Kam gave appropriate warnings that the share transfer would attract stamp duty and capital gains tax and properly advised waiting for a property settlement. The plaintiff's version of the facts and credibility was rejected. Therefore, no negligence, breach, or causation was established against the defendant, and the plaintiff's claim failed.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 06 October 2022
Procedural Posture: Negligence / Final Judgment After Hearing
Outcome: Judgment for the defendants
Legal Topics: ['duty of Care' 'accountant and Client' 'negligent Advice' 'credibility of Witnesses' 'contemporaneous Documents']

['negligence' 'evidence'] ['duty of Care' 'accountant and Client' 'negligent Advice' 'credibility of Witnesses' 'contemporaneous Documents']

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

Procedural Posture

Negligence / Final Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether Mr Kam, the accountant, gave negligent advice regarding stamp duty liability on the transfer of shares to a family trust' 'Whether the plaintiff relied on that advice and suffered loss' 'Factual dispute as to what advice was given']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Judgment for the defendants

Orders

['Judgment for the defendants.' "Order the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs of the proceedings, including any reserved costs."]