Zakka v Elias

Case [2013] NSWCA 119


Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Zakka v Elias [2013] NSWCA 119
Hearing dates:18 April 2013
Decision date: 13 May 2013
Before: Ward JA at [1]
Emmett JA at [145]
Tobias AJA at [160]
Decision:

Appeal dismissed with costs

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords:

TORTS - professional negligence - solicitors - failure to warn - whether an holistic
warning by itself is sufficient or whether the particular incidents giving rise to
that warning must be provided

TORTS - vicarious liability - whether a solicitor with a restricted practising certificate is thereby acting outside the course of employment if breaching a restriction on their practising certificate
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002
Contracts Review Act 1980
Legal Profession Act 2004
Cases Cited: AJH Lawyers Pty Ltd v Hamo [2010] VSC 225
Baiyai Pty Ltd v Guy [2009] NSWCA 65
Bannister and Legal Practitioners Ordinance 1970 - 1975 ex parte Hartstein (1975) 5 ACTR 100
Black Range Tin v Shoobert [1973] WAR 131
Bugge v Brown [1919] 26 CLR 110
Chappel v Hart [1998] HCA 55; (1998) 195 CLR 232
Cousins v Cousins (18 Dec 1990, unreported NSWCA judgment)
David v David [2009] NSWCA 8
Dominic v Riz [2009] NSWCA 216
Dyer v Munday (1895) 1 QB 742
Ffrench v Sestili [2007] SASC 241; (2007) 98 SASR 28
Frost & Sutcliffe v Tuiara [2003] NZCA 277; [2004] 1 NZLR 782
Hamlyn v Houston & Co (1903) 1 KB 81
Harvey & Anor v State of NSW [2006] NSWSC 1046
Hollis v Vabu Pty Limited [2001] HCA 44; (2001) 207 CLR 21
Kelly v Jowett [2009] NSWCA 278; (2009) 76 NSWLR 405
Knaggs v J A Westawav & Sons Pty Ltd (1996) 40 NSWLR 476
Kowalczuk v Accom Finance [2008] NSWCA 343
Limpus v London General Omnibus Co (1862) 1 H & C 526
Lloyd v Grace, Smith & Co. (1912) AC 732
Lucantonio v Kleinert [2009] NSWSC 853
Mackay v Commercial Bank of New Brunswick (1874) LR 5 PC 394
Plumb's Case (1914) AC 62
State of NSW v Lepore [2003] HCA 4; (2003) 212 CLR 511
Withyman v State of New South Wales [2013] NSWCA 10
Texts Cited: G E Dal Pont "Lawyers Professional Responsibility", 5th Edn, Thompsons Reuters Professional Australia Ltd, Sydney
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Victor Zakka (Appellant)
Georges Elias trading as Cadmus Lawyers (First Respondent)
Delilah Rahe (Second Respondent) (Submitting Appearance)
Representation: Counsel:
D Murr SC with Ms M Fraser (Appellant)
R Darke SC with I Griscti (First Respondent)
Solicitors:
Maxwell Berghouse & Ives (Appellant)
HWL Ebsworth (First Respondent)
Tudehope Partners (Second…

Continue reading Zakka v Elias

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Zakka v Elias [2013] NSWCA 119
Case
[2013] NSWCA 119
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Zakka v Elias*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered a claim brought by the plaintiff against a solicitor. The dispute concerned allegations of professional negligence, specifically a failure to adequately warn the plaintiff about certain risks. The court was also required to determine issues of vicarious liability in the context of a solicitor holding a restricted practising certificate.

The central legal questions before the Court of Appeal were whether a general warning about risks was sufficient in professional negligence claims against solicitors, or if the specific incidents giving rise to that warning must also be disclosed. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether a solicitor acting in breach of a restriction on their practising certificate was necessarily acting outside the course of their employment, thereby precluding vicarious liability for the firm.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. While the specific reasoning is not detailed in the provided text, the outcome suggests the court found that the solicitor's conduct did not amount to actionable negligence or that the firm was not vicariously liable. The dismissal of the appeal indicates that the court likely found the warnings provided to be adequate or that the breach of the practising certificate did not, in itself, remove the solicitor from the scope of employment for the purposes of vicarious liability.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.