I have a query regarding partially privatised government services - specifically, a Private Contractor of the state government, providing negligent advice and non-delivery of contracted services.
I would appreciate the thoughts of qualified readers on how such an issue could realistically be litigated, if at all. Some details below:
Professional negligence - Under a government charter and other state policies, advisors of Private Contractor were required to either give general advice, or referrals to specialist advice (law firms, licenced financial advisors), relating to an area of their expertise (insurance claims, pension claims). Instead the regular (sometimes weekly) advice was wildly incorrect, over the space of 18 months, causing damages. No referrals were made or even mentioned
Written agreement - The agreement between Clients and Private Contractor did not mention all responsibilities of the Contractor under government charter, which itself is a breach of said charter. No money changes hands, as the Contractor is funded directly by the state
Damages - Caused economic and non-economic losses ($100k), due to incorrect filings made under Private Contractor advice
Foreseeability - Such routine advice to any client, if incorrect, could often cause loss of income
Probability of harm - High likelihood, given that income is directly affected
Standard of care - Clientèle usually have complex legal & financial affairs. This privately-delivered government advice is often the only advice certain clients ever receive
Direct causation of damage - Advice is specifically related to filing claims to receive funds, for all clients
Evidence - Could be a problem, as we will likely have to rely on documents from government FOIA requests
Emotional distress claim - Appears to meet the VIC precedents of:
I would appreciate the thoughts of qualified readers on how such an issue could realistically be litigated, if at all. Some details below:
Professional negligence - Under a government charter and other state policies, advisors of Private Contractor were required to either give general advice, or referrals to specialist advice (law firms, licenced financial advisors), relating to an area of their expertise (insurance claims, pension claims). Instead the regular (sometimes weekly) advice was wildly incorrect, over the space of 18 months, causing damages. No referrals were made or even mentioned
Written agreement - The agreement between Clients and Private Contractor did not mention all responsibilities of the Contractor under government charter, which itself is a breach of said charter. No money changes hands, as the Contractor is funded directly by the state
Damages - Caused economic and non-economic losses ($100k), due to incorrect filings made under Private Contractor advice
Foreseeability - Such routine advice to any client, if incorrect, could often cause loss of income
Probability of harm - High likelihood, given that income is directly affected
Standard of care - Clientèle usually have complex legal & financial affairs. This privately-delivered government advice is often the only advice certain clients ever receive
Direct causation of damage - Advice is specifically related to filing claims to receive funds, for all clients
Evidence - Could be a problem, as we will likely have to rely on documents from government FOIA requests
Emotional distress claim - Appears to meet the VIC precedents of:
- causing disruption of, and physical imposition into, a place of residence of the Client
- removing means of accessing peace of mind, enjoyment or relaxation
