Yong v Velik Trading as SV Law

In the matter of *Yong v Velik Trading as SV Law*, the District Court of New South Wales considered a dispute between the plaintiff, Ms. Yong, and the defendant, Mr. Velik, who traded as SV Law. Ms. Yong alleged that Mr. Velik, a solicitor, had breached his duty of care in providing legal advice concerning a property transaction. Specifically, she claimed that Mr. Velik failed to adequately advise her on the risks associated with a particular clause in the contract for sale, which ultimately led to financial loss.

The central legal issue before the court was whether Mr. Velik had breached his professional duty of care to Ms. Yong. This involved determining the scope of the solicitor's duty in advising a client on contractual terms, particularly where those terms might carry inherent risks. The court was required to assess whether the advice provided by Mr. Velik met the standard of care expected of a reasonably competent solicitor in similar circumstances, and if not, whether this failure caused Ms. Yong the loss she claimed.

Judge Manousaridis found that Mr. Velik had indeed breached his duty of care. The court reasoned that a solicitor has a fundamental obligation to ensure their client fully understands the implications of contractual provisions, especially those that could adversely affect their interests. In this instance, the advice given by Mr. Velik was found to be insufficient, failing to adequately highlight the potential negative consequences of the specific clause in question. The court applied the principles of negligence, requiring proof of a duty of care, a breach of that duty, and causation of loss. The court concluded that the breach of duty directly caused Ms. Yong to suffer financial detriment.