Lee v Lawfirst Pty Ltd [No 2]

[2023] WASCA 166

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Contract
2. › Damages
3. › Non-pecuniary loss
4. › Loss of reputation
5. › Whether damages for injury to credit and reputation recoverable for breach of solicitor's retainer
6. › Whether [name withheld] v Gramophone Co Ltd establishes general rule precluding recovery
7. › Whether remoteness test in [name withheld] v [name withheld] applies or more exacting test analogous to disappointment and distress cases
1. Contract
2. › Damages
3. › Non-pecuniary loss
4. › Disappointment and distress
5. › Relationship between principles governing recoverability of damages for disappointment and distress and damages for loss of reputation
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Striking out
3. › Failure to disclose reasonable cause of action
4. › Whether claim for general damages for loss of reputation reasonably arguable
5. › Standard of appellate review of strike-out decision
6. › Principles governing summary determination
1. Legal Profession
2. › Solicitor's retainer
3. › Breach of retainer
4. › Failure to advise on prospects of success
5. › Failure to advise on settlement offer
6. › Whether object of retainer to prosecute defamation proceedings included protection or enhancement of reputation

Quick Take

[name withheld] v Gramophone Co Ltd does not establish a general rule precluding recovery of damages for loss of reputation in breach of contract; such claims must be evaluated by ordinary contractual principles of causation, remoteness and mitigation. A claim for non-pecuniary loss of reputation arising from breach of a solicitor's retainer to act in defamation proceedings is at least reasonably arguable. The question whether recoverability is governed by the [name withheld] v [name withheld] remoteness test or a more exacting test analogous to the disappointment and distress cases in Baltic Shipping Co v [name withheld] remains unresolved.