Yap v Granich & Associates

Yap, a former client, appealed against the decision of the trial judge, who had found that Granich & Associates, the accounting firm, had not breached any duty of care owed to Yap in their handling of his tax affairs. The trial judge's decision had been based on the finding that the firm had acted in accordance with the standards of professional competence and diligence expected of an accounting firm. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the trial judge had erred in his assessment of the firm's conduct and whether the firm had indeed breached any duty of care owed to Yap.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the trial judge had correctly assessed the duty of care owed by the accounting firm to Yap and whether the firm had breached that duty. The Court of Appeal needed to consider the applicable standard of care, which was that of a reasonable and competent accountant, and whether the firm's actions fell short of this standard. Additionally, the Court of Appeal had to determine whether the firm's conduct amounted to a breach of the duty of care owed to Yap, which would entitle Yap to compensation.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had correctly assessed the standard of care owed by the accounting firm to Yap, and that the firm had not fallen short of this standard. The Court of Appeal held that the firm had acted in accordance with the standards of professional competence and diligence expected of an accounting firm, and that the trial judge's findings were supported by the evidence. The Court of Appeal further found that the firm had not breached any duty of care owed to Yap, and that the trial judge's decision should be upheld. Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal with costs.