Zakka v Elias

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.