Our goal is to help people in the best way possible. this is a basic principle in every case and cause for success. contact us today for a free consultation.
Practice Areas
Newsletter
Sign up to our newsletter
Australia-wide · No win, no fee · Free case evaluation — speak to us today
Compensation Hub — Loss of Profit Claims
When a professional gets it wrong, the financial damage doesn’t always show up as a single obvious figure. Sometimes it’s a contract that didn’t go through. A tax structure that blew up at the worst moment. A business that lost ground it should never have lost. If that sounds familiar, you’re likely here because the loss was real — and you want to know whether you can recover it.
Loss of profit is a recognised head of damage in Australian professional negligence law. But how it’s assessed, how it’s proven, and what you’re ultimately entitled to recover depends on the specific facts of your situation.
Understanding the claim
A loss of profit claim is the pursuit of compensation for business income, revenue, or financial returns you lost — or were prevented from earning — as a direct result of a professional’s failure to meet the required standard of care. It is not a standalone legal cause of action. It sits within a broader professional negligence claim as one of the specific heads of loss a court can award.
Australian courts approach compensation by asking what position you would have been in had the professional done their job properly. The goal of any award is to restore you to that position as closely as money can do it. That principle runs through every quantum assessment in professional negligence law.
Past loss of profits
Income your business was already generating and would have continued to generate but for the negligence. Grounded in an established trading history and financial records. Courts regard this as the more reliable and readily provable category.
Future loss of profits
Revenue you would have earned going forward, which the professional’s failure has now made impossible or materially less likely. Courts require evidence of a genuine probability of profit — not a speculative possibility — but with the right evidence this category is far from unrecoverable.
The four-element test
Courts don’t award compensation simply because a business lost money after dealing with a professional. Four elements have to be established. Each one matters, and each one has to be supported by evidence.
The professional must have owed you a duty to exercise reasonable skill and care. For most engaged professionals — solicitors, accountants, financial advisers, engineers, consultants — this isn’t usually in dispute. More complex situations can arise where advice was given informally or beyond the scope of the engagement. The principle from Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465, that professionals can be liable for negligent misstatements where another party reasonably relied on their advice to their financial detriment, is well-absorbed into Australian law — and was examined in the professional negligence context by the High Court in Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd v Peat Marwick Hungerfords (1997) 188 CLR 241.
The professional must have fallen below the standard a reasonably competent practitioner in their field would have met in the same circumstances. This is an objective test — it’s not about whether they tried, or whether they were under pressure. Civil Liability Acts across Australian states and territories apply this consistently: what would a peer of equivalent experience and training have done?
The “but for” test applies: would you have suffered the profit loss but for the professional’s negligence? If the loss would have happened regardless, the claim faces real difficulty. Courts are alert to arguments that multiple causes contributed to the outcome — market conditions, business decisions independent of the advice, or factors outside the professional’s control. A well-prepared claim addresses causation head-on.
The loss must be real and capable of calculation with reasonable certainty. Speculative profits aren’t awarded. In the case of future loss or lost opportunity, courts assess the genuine probability of profit materialising — not theoretical possibility. This is where expert forensic accounting evidence becomes critical to the strength of the claim.
Real-world examples
Loss of profit claims arise across a broad range of professional relationships. These are the most common situations our team sees.
A lawyer fails to register a commercial lease or misses a condition precedent in a contract, resulting in the business losing its premises or a transaction collapsing. The lost revenue from that contract — and any downstream costs triggered by the failure — may form the basis of a quantifiable professional negligence claim.
An accountant structures a transaction incorrectly, triggering an unexpected capital gains tax liability or ATO audit penalty. The additional tax liability and associated professional costs are a direct, calculable financial loss that flows from the negligent advice.
An adviser places a client’s capital into high-risk or unsuitable products without proper assessment or disclosure. The capital erodes. The income stream the client relied on never materialises. The gap between what a properly managed portfolio would have generated and what actually happened is what courts are asked to calculate.
A structural or systems flaw isn’t picked up at the design stage. The project is completed, the defect emerges, and rectification takes months. The business loses revenue during the downtime. Both the lost profit during the disruption period and the direct rectification costs may be recoverable.
You bought a business on the strength of a valuation that turned out to be materially inflated. You paid more than the business was worth. The difference between the price paid and the actual fair market value is a loss that flows directly from the negligent advice — and it’s a loss courts recognise.
An insolvency practitioner or financial adviser recommends voluntary administration for a business that had genuine prospects of recovery with different guidance. The business collapses, its goodwill is destroyed, and the future revenue stream is wiped out. Where that advice was negligent, the lost going-concern value may be claimable.
Quantum and evidence
Courts don’t accept a claimant’s figures at face value. The assessment is evidence-driven and, in contested matters, often comes down to competing expert accounting reports. Understanding how this works helps you approach the claim realistically.
If your business had a documented trading history — audited accounts, tax returns, bank statements — courts will examine what the business was actually earning, consider the trajectory, and assess what would have continued but for the negligence. Three to five years of pre-event financial records is generally the baseline. This category is more straightforward because it’s anchored in what actually happened, not what might have happened.
The High Court addressed this in Sellars v Adelaide Petroleum NL (1994) 179 CLR 332, holding that a claimant can recover for the loss of a real and significant commercial chance — even if the outcome was never guaranteed. The question isn’t whether the profit would have been made, but what the genuine probability was. Courts will discount the award to reflect that probability and apply further discounts for contingencies outside the professional’s control: market conditions, competition, economic risk.
Courts don’t pretend the future is certain. If there was a 70% chance your business would have achieved the projected revenue, the award is likely to reflect something in that range — not the full projection. A well-argued claim presents the probability analysis persuasively rather than asking a court to accept unrealistic assumptions.
Once you become aware a professional has failed you, you cannot simply let losses accumulate. If a reasonable step was available to reduce the impact — finding a replacement supplier, exiting a bad position earlier, pivoting revenue — and you didn’t take it, that can reduce what you recover. This isn’t a reason not to claim; it’s a reason to document what you did to limit the damage from the moment the negligence came to light.
Building your case
Loss of profit claims live and die on documentation. The stronger your financial records, the more credible your loss calculation becomes. You will generally need to gather:
You do not need to have all of this assembled before you make contact. Gathering and organising this evidence is exactly the kind of work a specialist legal team handles on your behalf. The forensic accounting experts we work with are experienced in professional negligence quantum assessments and understand what courts require.
In most Australian states and territories, professional negligence claims must be commenced within 3 years of the date you discovered — or reasonably should have discovered — the negligence. In some states, up to 6 years may apply for general economic loss claims. These deadlines are strict. Once the window closes, the right to recover is gone permanently — regardless of how strong the underlying claim might have been.
If you are unsure whether your limitation period is still open, don’t wait to find out. Contact our team for a free, no-obligation assessment now.
Why Fair Go Australia
Professional negligence claims involving lost business income are among the most document-intensive in civil litigation. The quantum isn’t self-evident — it has to be built, piece by piece, from financial records, expert evidence, and a clear causal narrative that connects the professional’s failure directly to the money you lost. That’s work that requires specialist experience.
Fair Go Australia focuses exclusively on professional negligence claims. We work across every state and territory — you don’t need to be in a capital city to access our team. The initial case evaluation is completely free and carries no obligation.
If your claim has merit, we take it on a no-win, no-fee basis. You won’t be funding the litigation out of pocket. If we don’t recover compensation, you don’t pay our fees. We engage forensic accountants and experienced barristers where the claim requires it, and we deal directly with professional indemnity insurers and their lawyers on your behalf.
We’ll be direct with you from the outset about whether the claim is worth pursuing and what a realistic recovery looks like. If it’s not the right path, we’ll tell you that too.
No obligation — no cost
Our team will review the facts of your situation and give you an honest assessment — at no cost and with no obligation. If there’s a claim worth pursuing, we’ll tell you what it’s worth and how to move forward.
Frequently asked questions
Our goal is to help people in the best way possible. this is a basic principle in every case and cause for success. contact us today for a free consultation.
Sign up to our newsletter