Yeo v Sharma

In *Yeo v Sharma*, the Supreme Court of New South Wales was asked to determine whether a solicitor, Mr. Sharma, had breached his duty of care to his client, Ms. Yeo, by failing to advise her of the risks associated with a particular investment. Ms. Yeo alleged that Mr. Sharma's negligence in this regard caused her to suffer financial loss.

The central legal issue before the court was whether Mr. Sharma had met the standard of care expected of a reasonably competent solicitor in advising Ms. Yeo about the investment. This involved considering the scope of the retainer, the nature of the advice required, and whether the solicitor had adequately identified and communicated the relevant risks to the client.

Burchardt J found that Mr. Sharma had indeed breached his duty of care. The court held that a solicitor has a positive duty to advise a client on the risks of a proposed course of action, particularly where those risks are significant and not readily apparent. The judge reasoned that Mr. Sharma failed to adequately investigate the investment and communicate its inherent dangers to Ms. Yeo, thereby falling below the required standard of professional competence. The court concluded that this failure was causative of Ms. Yeo's losses.