Metzke and Allen v Sali

In the case of Metzke and Allen v Sali, the plaintiffs sought to recover damages for the alleged negligence of the defendant, an accountant, in his handling of their tax affairs. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, with the trial judge finding that the accountant was negligent in his retainer but that this negligence did not have any relevant consequence on the plaintiffs' financial position. The plaintiffs appealed the decision, contending that the trial judge had erred in his findings of negligence, no relevant consequence, and contributory negligence. The defendant cross-appealed, arguing that the trial judge had erred in finding that he was a concurrent wrongdoer and in the calculation of apportionment.

The court was required to determine whether the trial judge's findings of negligence, no relevant consequence, and contributory negligence were correct. The court also needed to determine whether the trial judge erred in finding the defendant to be a concurrent wrongdoer and in the calculation of apportionment. The court considered the relevant legal principles, including the standard of reasonable care and skill expected of an accountant, the principles of causation, and the relevant statutory provisions.

The court found that the trial judge had erred in his finding of negligence, as the plaintiffs had established that the accountant's failure to comply with relevant tax laws and regulations constituted a breach of the standard of reasonable care and skill. The court also found that the trial judge had erred in his finding of no relevant consequence, as the plaintiffs had demonstrated that the accountant's negligence had resulted in a financial loss. The court held that the trial judge's finding of no contributory negligence was open to him on the evidence. Finally, the court found that the trial judge had erred in his finding of concurrent wrongdoer and in the calculation of apportionment, as the evidence did not support this finding.

The court allowed the appeal in part and dismissed the cross-appeal. The case was remitted to the trial judge for reassessment of the damages and apportionment of liability in accordance with the court's findings.