Case 2 - case summaries PDF

Title	Case 2 - case summaries
Course	Property Law A
Institution	Queensland University of Technology
Pages	1
File Size	84.7 KB
File Type	PDF
Total Downloads	93
Total Views	152

Preview

CLICK TO PREVIEW PDF

Summary

case summaries...

Description

Case 3 - Giannarelli v Wraith (1988) 62 ALJR 611; (1988) 165 CLR 543 Considered the immunity doctrine and confirmed the duty to the court is of paramount importance. Catchwords: Legal practitioners — Immunities (barristers) — Immunity from liability for negligence — Conduct of court proceedings

Principle

Appellant: Giannarelli Respondent

Wraith (Barrister)

FACTS OF CASE: Legal Profession Practice Act 1958 (Vic), s 10(2) barrister is liable for negligence as a barrister to the client ..to the same extent as a solicitor is liable to his client for negligence as a solicitor.

ISSUE: Barristers’ immunity from liability for negligence RATIO DICIDENDI: Counsel’s duty to the court (administration of justice) outweighs their duty to the client. at [11] and [12]. WHAT’S RELEVANT FOR EVIDENCE?: Fundamental role of the advocate is no to the client, but to the court. Even if it disadvantages the client. HELD: (a) An advocate is immune from suit whether for negligence or otherwise in the conduct of a case in court. The LPPA section does not displace the common law immunity of a barrister, or of a solicitor acting as an advocate, in respect of work done in court and of work done out of court leading to a decision affecting the conduct of the case. (b) The same immunity attaches to a solicitor acting as an advocate in court as attaches to a barrister (c) The immunity extends to work done out of court which leads to a decision affecting the conduct of the case in court. The protection extends to work so intimately connected with the conduct of the case in court that it can fairly be said to be a preliminary decision affecting the way that case is to be conducted when it comes to a hearing (d) at 559 Mason CJ said that to limit the immunity so that it ended at the court room door so that the protection does not extend to preparatory activities, such as the drawing and settling of pleadings and the giving of advice on evidence, would be artificial in the extreme....