MBAKWE v SARKIS [2009] NSWCA 330

MBAKWE v SARKIS [2009] NSWCA 330

The defendant, as the plaintiff's financial adviser, owed a duty of care when giving financial advice, including unsolicited advice regarding loans to a property developer. The advice given was held to be negligent as it was based on inadequate inquiry and unconditional recommendation of insecure investments. Reliance was established even though there were additional inducing causes. Representations made by the defendant were continuing. The appeal against findings of duty, breach, causation and reliance all failed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['negligence' 'duty of Care' 'negligent Misrepresentation' 'professional Advice' 'causation' 'continuing Representation']
['torts'] ['negligence' 'duty of Care' 'negligent Misrepresentation' 'professional Advice' 'causation' 'continuing Representation']

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

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff in giving financial advice.' 'Whether the advice and/or representations made by the defendant were negligent and caused loss to the plaintiff.' "Whether reliance on the defendant's advice was negated or reduced by other inducing causes." 'Whether representations in relation to earlier transactions continued and induced further investment.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant, as the plaintiff's financial adviser, owed a duty of care when giving financial advice, including unsolicited advice regarding loans to a property developer. The advice given was held to be negligent as it was based on inadequate inquiry and unconditional recommendation of insecure investments. Reliance was established even though there were additional inducing causes. Representations made by the defendant were continuing. The appeal against findings of duty, breach, causation and reliance all failed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']