Amil Dlakic by his tutor Liliane Dlakic v Michael John Vaughan

Amil Dlakic, through his tutor Liliane Dlakic, brought a claim against Michael John Vaughan, a solicitor, regarding a series of agreements involving the repurchase of a legal practice and various financial matters. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where Dlakic sought to set aside a buyback agreement on the grounds of undue influence and unconscionable conduct, as well as claiming professional negligence by Vaughan. Vaughan, in turn, argued that the agreements should remain in place and that Dlakic was not entitled to any rectification of the company's share register or to be reinstated as a shareholder.

The court was required to determine whether the buyback agreement should be set aside due to undue influence and unconscionable conduct, whether Dlakic's claims of professional negligence were substantiated, and whether Dlakic was entitled to rectification of the company's share register. The court also needed to consider the effect of ASIC documents on the evidence presented and whether they could be relied upon.

In its decision, the court found that the agreement should be set aside due to the defendant taking advantage of a special disadvantage of the plaintiff. The court held that the defendant had indeed exploited the plaintiff's vulnerability, leading to an unconscionable agreement. The court further determined that the plaintiff was not able to establish a negligence claim against the defendant, as there was no formal retainer and the duty of a solicitor did not extend to advising on financial matters in this context. Regarding the rectification of the share register, the court ruled that Dlakic was entitled to be reinstated as the holder of one of the two shares in the company, and the register should be rectified accordingly.

The final orders included setting aside the buyback agreement, denying the claim of professional negligence, and rectifying the company's share register to reflect Dlakic as the holder of one share. The court also considered the evidentiary effect of ASIC documents, confirming their prima facie status for the matters stated within them.