Symonds v Vass

In *Symonds v Vass*, the appellants, former clients of the respondent solicitor, appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a decision of Patten AJ. The dispute concerned allegations that the respondent had breached his contractual and tortious duties in preparing the appellants' case for trial, leading to the appellants entering into a compromise of their claim and suffering damage by losing the opportunity of a better outcome.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the respondent's conduct constituted a breach of his professional duties, and crucially, whether any such breaches caused the appellants to suffer loss. A further issue concerned the adequacy of the trial judge's reasons for judgment, specifically whether they exposed a clear chain of reasoning based on express findings of primary fact, or whether they merely recounted extensive evidence. The application of advocate's immunity, as established in *D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid*, and the principle of finality of litigation were also relevant considerations.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's reasons were inadequate, failing to provide a discernible basis for his conclusions. The judges were unable to identify a clear chain of reasoning from the findings of fact to the ultimate decision. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and cross-appeal, setting aside the orders of the trial judge and remitting the proceedings for a new trial on all issues. The costs of the original trial were to be determined by the judge conducting the new trial, while the respondent was ordered to pay 70 per cent of the appellants' costs on appeal.