Coshott v Prentice (No.2)

In *Coshott v Prentice (No.2)*, the Supreme Court of New South Wales was asked to determine whether a solicitor, Mr Prentice, had breached his duty of care to his client, Ms Coshott, by failing to advise her of the risks associated with a particular investment. Ms Coshott alleged that Mr Prentice's negligence in this regard had caused her to suffer financial loss.

The central legal issue before the court was whether Mr Prentice had met the standard of care expected of a reasonably competent solicitor in advising Ms Coshott about the investment. This involved considering the nature of the advice required, the information available to the solicitor at the time, and the extent to which a solicitor is obliged to warn a client about the inherent risks of a commercial transaction, particularly when the client is sophisticated and experienced in business.

Judge Driver found that Mr Prentice had not breached his duty of care. The court reasoned that while a solicitor must provide competent advice, they are not expected to be financial advisors or to guarantee the success of an investment. In this instance, Ms Coshott was an experienced businesswoman who had sought legal advice on the *terms* of the investment, not on its commercial viability. Mr Prentice had provided advice on the legal aspects of the transaction, and there was no evidence that he had acted negligently in doing so. The court concluded that the risks associated with the investment were apparent to Ms Coshott, and Mr Prentice was not obliged to provide a detailed warning about them.

The court therefore dismissed Ms Coshott's claim.