Kambouris v Tahmazis (No 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 68 min read
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMERCIAL COURT

S CI 2007 10201

BETWEEN:

POLYXENI KAMBOURIS (also known as JENNY KAMBOURIS) Plaintiff
v  
THEO TAHMAZIS (who is sued in his capacity as personal representative of the estate of BILL FLOROS) (also known as VASILIOS FLOROS) and others (according to the schedule attached) Defendants
AND BETWEEN:
THEO TAHMAZIS (who is sued in his capacity as personal representative of the estate of BILL FLOROS) (also known as VASILIOS FLOROS) Plaintiff by Counterclaim
- and - 
POLYXENI KAMBOURIS (also known as JENNY KAMBOURIS) and others (according to the schedule attached) Defendants by Counterclaim

---

JUDGE:

Lansdowne AsJ

WHERE HELD:

Melbourne

DATE OF HEARING:

4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 26 and 27 February 2015 and further written submissions on 17 and 27 March 2015.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:

30 April 2015

CASE MAY BE CITED AS:

Kambouris v Tahmazis (No 2)

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:

[2015] VSC 174

---

NEGLIGENCE – Solicitor found liable in earlier trial for failing to inform his client on her entering into guarantees that a promised security had not been provided – Assessment of damages referred to an associate judge – Client claims the subsequent loss of her security properties – Whether causation established in the earlier trial – Whether that loss was caused by the solicitor’s negligence – Application of the Wrongs Act1958 (Vic) – Factual causation – Negligent omission – No transaction counterfactual – Plaintiff must show that not entering the transaction would have prevented the loss, not just that it may have – Factual causation not proved – Scope of liability – Not proved that it would be appropriate to extend the solicitor’s liability to the loss claimed.

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES FOR NEGLIGENCE – Deduction of pre-existing liability from quantum – Nominal damages for breach of retainer – Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic), s 51.

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel Solicitors
For the Plaintiff Mr R Cook with
Ms S Varney
AMC Law & Associates
For the Defendants Mr N de Young Minter Ellison

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 1

Facts and procedural history............................................................................................................ 2

The plaintiff’s claim before Judd J and in this trial................................................................... 12

Has causation already been determined?.................................................................................... 19

Legal Principles................................................................................................................................ 23

Common law or the Wrongs Act?............................................................................................. 23

Factual causation in the case of a negligent omission........................................................... 26

Section 51(2): here not applicable............................................................................................. 30

Scope of liability.......................................................................................................................... 30

Factual Causation............................................................................................................................. 31

The elements of the plaintiff’s case.......................................................................................... 31

Evidence in the plaintiff’s case.................................................................................................. 35

The plaintiff’s evidence.................................................................................................... 35

Mr Kambouris’ evidence.................................................................................................. 37

Assessment of the evidence....................................................................................................... 38

Credit.................................................................................................................................. 38

Conduct in relation to guarantees................................................................................... 44

Acting as her husband requested.................................................................................... 51

Reasons to proceed with the restructure....................................................................... 54

Legal costs.................................................................................................................................... 67

Repayment of $100,000 and lost interest thereon................................................................... 67

Summary of conclusions on factual causation....................................................................... 68

Scope of Liability............................................................................................................................. 71

Pre-existing liability................................................................................................................... 76

Post negligence increase in liability......................................................................................... 78

Continued use of The Boulevard............................................................................................. 80

The nature of the duty, the breach and the loss..................................................................... 80

Quantum............................................................................................................................................ 82

Nominal damages............................................................................................................................. 86

Orders.................................................................................................................................................…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Kambouris v Tahmazis (No 2) and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2015] VSC 174
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Kambouris v Tahmazis (No 2) involves a claim for damages brought by the plaintiff against the defendant solicitor. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant was negligent in failing to inform her that a promised security had not been provided when she entered into certain guarantees. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. In the earlier trial, the plaintiff successfully sued the defendant for negligence, and the matter now before the court concerns the assessment of damages. The key legal issues before the court were whether the loss claimed by the plaintiff was caused by the defendant's negligence and whether the scope of the defendant's liability should be extended to include the loss claimed.

The court found that the plaintiff had not established factual causation. The court held that the plaintiff needed to show that not entering into the transaction would have prevented the loss, rather than just that it may have. There was no transaction counterfactual to establish the required causation. The court also found that it was not appropriate to extend the defendant's liability to the loss claimed. The court held that the loss claimed was not a direct result of the defendant's negligence but rather a consequence of the plaintiff's decision to enter into the transaction with the defendant. The court further held that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover the full value of the security properties lost, but rather to nominal damages for breach of retainer. The court also held that the pre-existing liability should be deducted from the quantum of damages awarded.

The court ordered that the plaintiff recover nominal damages of $1 from the defendant. The court also ordered that the pre-existing liability of $100,000 be deducted from the quantum of damages awarded. The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover any further damages from the defendant. The court held that the defendant was not liable for the full value of the security properties lost by the plaintiff.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.