Sam George Sarkis v Samuel Mbakwe [2008] NSWDC 220

Sam George Sarkis v Samuel Mbakwe [2008] NSWDC 220

The defendant, acting as the plaintiff's financial adviser, made representations regarding the safety and prospects of lending money to a third party, which were relied upon by the plaintiff. These representations were negligently made, as the defendant failed to undertake reasonable inquiries. The plaintiff's reliance on the defendant's advice was reasonable in the circumstances, and the plaintiff suffered loss as a direct consequence. Judgment granted for negligent misstatement, not deceit or under statutory grounds.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 September 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff.
Legal Topics
['negligent Misstatement' 'breach of Duty of Care' 'financial Advice' 'misrepresentation' 'damages' 'fair Trading Act' 'interest on Damages' 'costs']
['tort Law' 'contract Law' 'statutory Law'] ['negligent Misstatement' 'breach of Duty of Care' 'financial Advice' 'misrepresentation' 'damages' 'fair Trading Act' 'interest on Damages' 'costs']

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 After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care in making financial representations' "Whether the defendant made negligent misstatements leading to the plaintiff's loss" 'Whether the defendant breached section 42 of the Fair Trading Act' 'Whether the defendant made actionable representations amounting to deceit']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant, acting as the plaintiff's financial adviser, made representations regarding the safety and prospects of lending money to a third party, which were relied upon by the plaintiff. These representations were negligently made, as the defendant failed to undertake reasonable inquiries. The plaintiff's reliance on the defendant's advice was reasonable in the circumstances, and the plaintiff suffered loss as a direct consequence. Judgment granted for negligent misstatement, not deceit or under statutory grounds.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $390,376 comprised of principal and interest.' "Order the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings, such costs be agreed or assessed on the ordinary basis up to and including 1 September 2008, and thereafter on an indemnity basis from 2 September 2008."]