Doolan v Renkon Pty Ltd

The plaintiff, Doolan, brought proceedings against the defendant, Renkon Pty Ltd, a firm of solicitors, alleging professional negligence. The dispute concerned advice provided by Renkon to Doolan in relation to a commercial lease. Doolan claimed that the incomplete advice led to a loss of an opportunity to surrender the lease and demand a payment. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Court of Appeal.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether Doolan had proven, on the balance of probabilities, that he would have taken up the opportunity to surrender the lease and demand payment had he received complete advice. The Court also had to determine how to assess the value of this lost opportunity, specifically how to estimate its value if it had been pursued to a successful outcome, in accordance with the principles established in *Hungerfords v Walker*.

The Court of Appeal considered the principles of causation and the assessment of damages for loss of opportunity. It applied the test that for a loss of opportunity to be recoverable, the plaintiff must prove on the balance of probabilities that they would have taken the opportunity. If that threshold is met, the value of the lost opportunity is then assessed by estimating the probability of a successful outcome had the opportunity been pursued. The Court found that Doolan had not discharged the onus of proving on the balance of probabilities that he would have surrendered the lease and demanded payment. However, the Court allowed the cross-appeal, indicating that the original assessment of damages was flawed.

Consequently, the appeal brought by Doolan was dismissed. The cross-appeal by Renkon Pty Ltd was allowed, and the Court indicated it would hear further submissions from counsel regarding the precise amount of the substituted judgment sum.