Kambouris v Tahmazis (No 2)

The matter before the court was an appeal against an assessment of damages for negligence. The appellant, Ms Kambouris, sued the respondent, Mr Tahmazis, a solicitor, for failing to inform her that a promised security had not been provided before she entered into guarantees. The trial judge found Mr Tahmazis liable for the solicitor's negligence, and the matter was referred to an associate judge to assess damages. Ms Kambouris claimed the subsequent loss of her security properties. The court had to determine whether causation was established in the earlier trial, whether that loss was caused by the solicitor's negligence, and the scope of the solicitor's liability.

The court held that factual causation was not proved. The plaintiff must show that not entering the transaction would have prevented the loss, not just that it may have. There was no transaction counterfactual. The court found that Ms Kambouris failed to establish factual causation, as she did not prove that not entering the transaction would have prevented the loss of her security properties. The court also held that it would not be appropriate to extend the solicitor's liability to the loss claimed. The court found that the plaintiff's claim for the loss of her security properties was outside the scope of the solicitor's liability.

The court also found that the pre-existing liability should be deducted from the quantum of damages. The court held that Ms Kambouris was entitled to nominal damages for breach of retainer under the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic), s 51. The court found that Mr Tahmazis was liable for the solicitor's negligence, and the damages should be assessed accordingly. The court ordered that the pre-existing liability should be deducted from the quantum of damages, and nominal damages should be awarded for breach of retainer.

The court ordered that the pre-existing liability should be deducted from the quantum of damages. The court ordered that nominal damages should be awarded for breach of retainer. The court ordered that Mr Tahmazis should pay the costs of the appeal.