Legal Research
Cases
Abriel v Bennett

Abriel v Bennett

Case [2003] NSWSC 368 2 May 2003

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: ABRIEL & ORS v BENNETT [2003] NSWSC 368 revised - 7/05/2003

HEARING DATE(S): 29 & 30 April 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
2 May 2003

JURISDICTION:
Common Law

JUDGMENT OF: Adams J at 1

DECISION: Action dismissed for abuse of process. The plaintiffs to pay the defendant's costs.

CATCHWORDS: Practice - abuse of process - inherent jurisdiction to dismiss action as abuse of process - plaintiffs attempting to relitigate issues decided in earlier proceedings against another party - present defendant witness in earlier proceedings - substantial identify of issues as to defendant's professional conduct in both proceedings - action against defendant dismissed as abuse of process

LEGISLATION CITED: s52, Trade Practices Act 1974

CASES CITED: Abriel v AGC & anor [1999] FCA 50
Abriel v Rothman [2002] NSWSC 1056
Haines v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1995) 43 NSWLR 404
Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun (1981) 147 CLR 589
Reichel v Bishop of Oxford (1889) 14 App Cas 665
Reichel v Magrath (1889) 14 App Cas 665
Rippon v Chilcotin Pty Limited & ors (2001) 53 NSWLR 198
State Bank of New South Wales Ltd v Stenhouse Ltd (1997) Aust Tort Reports 81-423 (64,077)
Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 373

PARTIES :
Rudolph Abriel (First Plaintiff)
Vera Abriel (Second Plaintiff)
Premier Knits Pty Limited (Third Plaintiff)
Annabelle C Bennett (Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20634/01

COUNSEL: Plaintiff in person
Mr S Rares SC with Mr SCG Burley (Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Plaintiff in person
Speed & Stracey (Defendant)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

ADAMS J

FRIDAY 2 MAY 2003

20634/01

ABRIEL & ORS v BENNETT
JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: Rudolph Abriel, Vera Abriel and Premier Knits Pty Limited commenced an action in this Court against Ms Annabelle Bennett SC in respect of conduct said to have been committed by her as their counsel in proceedings between them and Australian Guarantee Corporation Limited and Westpac Banking Corporation (variously, the respondents and the financiers) in the Federal Court of Australia in which the plaintiffs had sought to set aside a deed of release executed in April 1994 resolving certain disputes between them and the financiers, and damages. Those proceedings were terminated following a mediation when the parties entered into a further deed of settlement (the 1998 deed) under which the financiers agreed to pay Mr and Mrs Abriel $90,000 in full and final settlement of all disputes between the parties. The defendant acted as counsel for the plaintiffs at this mediation. The plaintiffs assert, amongst other things, that the defendant had also undertaken to appear for them at the trial, in the event that the mediation failed. Both the defendant and her instructing solicitor, Mr Levitt, say that the defendant had at no time been retained or briefed to appear in the trial and that the plaintiffs knew this. In this, and other contexts, that the defendant acted pro bono at all times before and during the mediation is a significant fact.

2 In September 1998 the plaintiffs, as…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Abriel v Bennett

Details

AGLC: Abriel v Bennett [2003] NSWSC 368
Case: [2003] NSWSC 368
Decision Date: 2 May 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Abriel v Bennett involved a dispute where the plaintiff, Abriel, sought to bring an action against the defendant, Bennett, alleging professional misconduct. This case was heard and determined in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute arose from allegations that Bennett, a professional, had acted improperly in earlier proceedings where Abriel was also a party. In those proceedings, Bennett had been a witness and had provided evidence against Abriel. The current action sought to relitigate issues concerning Bennett's professional conduct that had already been addressed and decided in the earlier proceedings.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the court had the inherent jurisdiction to dismiss the action as an abuse of process, and if so, whether the current proceedings against Bennett constituted such an abuse. The court needed to determine if the plaintiff was attempting to circumvent the earlier decision by bringing a new action against Bennett, despite the substantial identity of the issues. The court also had to consider if the application of the doctrine of abuse of process was appropriate in this context, given the nature of the relationship between the parties and the prior proceedings.

The court found that it did indeed have the inherent jurisdiction to dismiss the action as an abuse of process. It held that the plaintiff was attempting to relitigate issues that had already been decided against them in a different context. The court emphasised the substantial identity of the issues in both proceedings and the fact that Bennett had been a witness in the earlier case. It concluded that the plaintiff's attempt to bring a new action against Bennett amounted to an abuse of the judicial process. Consequently, the court dismissed the action against Bennett as an abuse of process, reinforcing the importance of finality in judicial decisions and the prevention of collateral attacks on prior judgments.

In light of the dismissal, the court did not need to make any further orders as the action against Bennett was terminated. This decision underscored the courts' commitment to preventing repetitive litigation and maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.

Orders