Jadwan Pty Ltd v Rae & Partners (A firm) & Ors

Jadwan Pty Ltd (the applicant) brought proceedings against Rae & Partners (a firm) and two of its solicitors (the respondents) in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute concerned allegations of professional negligence and breach of contract arising from the respondents' conduct in acting for the applicant in relation to a property development project. The applicant sought damages for losses allegedly suffered as a result of the respondents' alleged failures.

The central legal issues before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria were whether the primary judge had erred in finding that the respondents had breached their duty of care to the applicant and, if so, whether the applicant had suffered loss or damage as a consequence of that breach. Specifically, the court considered the scope of the respondents' retainer and the standard of care expected of them in advising and acting for the applicant in complex property development matters, including issues related to planning permits and contractual obligations.

Bell and Keane JJ, in their joint judgment, analysed the evidence and the primary judge's findings in detail. They affirmed the principles of professional negligence, emphasizing that a solicitor owes a duty to exercise reasonable care and skill in carrying out their retainer. The court considered whether the respondents' advice and actions fell below the standard expected of a reasonably competent solicitor in their position, particularly in light of the information available to them at the time. They also examined the causal link between any alleged breach and the applicant's claimed losses, applying the principles of causation in negligence.

The Full Court ultimately upheld the primary judge's findings on liability and causation, dismissing the appeal. The court concluded that the respondents had breached their duty of care to the applicant and that this breach had caused the applicant to suffer loss. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the respondents were ordered to pay the applicant's costs.