Dinh v Nguyen

In the matter of Dinh v Nguyen, the plaintiff, a tenant, alleged that the defendant, a landlord, through his solicitor, was negligent in the provision of a new refrigerator in the leased premises. The dispute came before the court which was tasked with determining whether the solicitor had breached his duty of care by not advising on a clause in the lease which excluded the landlord's liability for the suitability and performance of the refrigerator. The court had to decide the issues of foreseeability, whether the conduct fell short of the expected standard, causation, whether the breach caused the loss, whether the loss was partly attributable to a concurrent wrongdoer, mitigation, contributory negligence, and quantum.

The court examined whether the solicitor had a duty of care to advise the plaintiff on the exclusion clause, and if so, whether the solicitor's failure to do so constituted a breach of that duty. The court considered the foreseeability of harm arising from the clause, the standard of care expected of the solicitor, and the causation of the loss. The court also assessed whether the loss was partly attributable to a concurrent wrongdoer, the plaintiff's own contributory negligence, and the appropriate quantum of damages. The court concluded that the defendant's solicitor did not breach their duty of care by not advising on the exclusion clause, and that the plaintiff's loss was not caused by the defendant's negligence.

The court found in favour of the defendant and ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs. The court granted the defendant liberty to apply in relation to costs. The court held that the defendant's solicitor did not breach their duty of care, and that the plaintiff's loss was not caused by the defendant's negligence. The court also found that the plaintiff's own contributory negligence contributed to the loss, and that the appropriate quantum of damages was zero. The court ordered judgment for the defendant, and that the plaintiffs pay the defendant's costs. The court granted the defendant liberty to apply in relation to costs.