Lavars v Gillis and Ors

The plaintiffs, Lavars, sought to recover damages from the defendants, Gillis and others, for professional negligence in legal advice. The defendants had provided advice regarding the acceptance or rejection of offers to compromise proceedings related to the recovery of employee entitlements and damages, as well as advice to bring proceedings involving fraud and related issues. The plaintiffs were ultimately successful at trial on limited issues, but the judgment entered was less than the offers made, and adverse costs orders were made where the fraud claims were unfounded. The court was required to determine whether the defendants' advice accorded with the standard of reasonable care and the quantum of loss, specifically the loss of opportunity.

The court considered the standard of care expected of legal practitioners in providing advice on offers to compromise and in deciding whether to bring proceedings involving fraud. The court examined the defendants' advice in the context of the information available to them at the time and whether a reasonably competent practitioner would have provided similar advice. The court also considered the plaintiffs' entitlement to recover the loss of opportunity, which was the difference between the judgment entered and the offers made, as well as the adverse costs orders.

The court found that the defendants' advice was not in accordance with the standard of reasonable care. The court held that the defendants should have advised the plaintiffs to accept the offers made, as the prospects of success on the fraud claims were low, and the risks of proceeding were high. The court also found that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the loss of opportunity, which was the difference between the judgment entered and the offers made, as well as the adverse costs orders. The court awarded damages to the plaintiffs in the amount of $200,000.

The court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the proceedings. The court held that the defendants' negligence caused the plaintiffs to incur the loss of opportunity and the adverse costs orders. The court found that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the full amount of their loss, including the loss of opportunity and the adverse costs orders. The court held that the defendants were liable for the full amount of the plaintiffs' loss, and the plaintiffs were entitled to recover their costs of the proceedings from the defendants.