Watkins v De Varda

In *Watkins v De Varda*, the Supreme Court of New South Wales considered a dispute between a solicitor, De Varda, and his client, Watkins. Watkins alleged professional negligence against De Varda, claiming that the solicitor had failed to adequately protect her interests during a property transaction. The core of the dispute revolved around De Varda's conduct in preparing documents for Watkins, particularly in circumstances where De Varda was also acting for another party with conflicting interests.

The Court was required to determine whether De Varda owed a duty of care to Watkins, notwithstanding a purported disclaimer of responsibility. It also had to consider whether De Varda's actions constituted a breach of his duty of care, particularly in failing to advise Watkins that he could not protect her interests and that she should obtain independent legal advice. Furthermore, the Court examined whether De Varda's conduct amounted to a misrepresentation in breach of section 42 of the *Fair Trading Act 1987* (NSW), and whether Watkins was contributorily negligent by failing to seek independent legal advice.

The Court found that De Varda had indeed owed a duty of care to Watkins. It reasoned that despite De Varda's attempts to limit his role to merely reproducing an earlier document, Watkins had placed reliance on him. The Court held that De Varda's failure to advise Watkins of the conflict of interest and the necessity of obtaining independent legal advice constituted a breach of his professional obligations and a misrepresentation under the *Fair Trading Act*. The Court concluded that Watkins was not contributorily negligent, as her reliance on De Varda was reasonable in the circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.