Vakras v Cripps

In *Vakras v Cripps*, the Supreme Court of Victoria was asked to determine whether a solicitor, Mr Cripps, had breached his duty of care to his client, Ms Vakras, by failing to advise her of the risks associated with a particular course of action in litigation. Ms Vakras alleged that Mr Cripps's negligence had caused her to suffer loss.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether Mr Cripps had breached his duty to exercise reasonable care and skill in his professional capacity. This involved considering the scope of a solicitor's duty to advise a client on the potential consequences of litigation, including the risks of adverse costs orders, and whether the advice provided by Mr Cripps met the required standard of care.

Judge Burchardt found that a solicitor owes a duty to advise a client on all reasonably foreseeable risks of litigation, including the risk of an adverse costs order. The Court held that Mr Cripps had failed to adequately discharge this duty by not clearly explaining to Ms Vakras the potential for her to be ordered to pay the other side's costs if she lost the proceeding. This failure constituted a breach of his duty of care. The Court concluded that Ms Vakras had established that Mr Cripps's negligence caused her to suffer loss.