Thomas v Adam

In *Thomas v Adam*, the plaintiff, Mr Thomas, sued his former solicitor, Mr Adam, for professional negligence arising from the settlement of a land purchase. Mr Thomas alleged that Mr Adam's failure to make the contract conditional upon the variation of a restriction on the use of the land, and his subsequent delay in completing the purchase, caused Mr Thomas to incur increased building costs and other expenses. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the solicitor's conduct constituted negligence, and if so, whether the plaintiff had suffered loss or damage as a direct consequence of that negligence. The court was required to consider the distinction between damages recoverable for professional negligence and those that might be awarded for a breach of warranty.

The Court of Appeal found that the plaintiff had not established that the solicitor's actions or omissions caused the loss he claimed. The court reasoned that even if the solicitor had acted negligently, the evidence did not demonstrate that the plaintiff would not have proceeded with the purchase or incurred the alleged additional costs had the contract been made conditional on the variation of the restriction. The court applied principles of causation in negligence, requiring the plaintiff to prove that the loss was a foreseeable consequence of the solicitor's breach of duty.

The appeal was dismissed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs.