NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Symond v Gadens Lawyers Sydney Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 955 Hearing dates: 18 February to 1 March 2013 Decision date: 19 July 2013 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Beech-Jones J Decision: Plaintiff succeeds in establishing negligence, breach of retainer and contravention of s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) against the First Defendant. Quantification of judgment to await further calculations. Catchwords: NEGLIGENCE - professional negligence - specialised tax advice - was advice concerning the tax consequences of the proposed business restructure negligent - whether advice that the redemption of preference shares would be tax free was wrong - failure to advert to the definition of "dividend" in s 6(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 - failure to warn of the risk of application of s 45B and Part IVA of the ITAA 1936 to proceeds of the redemption- what alternative structures should have been recommended - negligent misstatement.
CONTRACT - was there was a contract of retainer - breach of retainer.
TRADE AND COMMERCE - trade practices - whether defendant engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct contrary to s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).
CAUSATION - whether alleged deficiencies in advice caused liabilities of plaintiff under Deed of Settlement with the Commissioner of Taxation - whether deficiencies must coincide with the precise tax exposures settled under the Deed.
DAMAGES - measurement of loss or damage - alternative structures that should have been recommended - tax consequences of those structures - which alternative would the plaintiff most likely have pursued "but for" the negligent advice - difference between plaintiff's financial position under "but for" scenario and in the events that transpired - benefit of pursuing restructure that was recommended - whether benefit from paying dividends earlier rather than later permanent or temporary - measurement of benefit - valuation of deduction in franking credits from franking account - reflective loss - whether deduction from franking account only caused reflective loss to shareholder.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate