Legal Research
Cases
Blobel v RYAN

Blobel v RYAN

Case [2010] SADC 107 13 August 2010

Duty of Care

Professional Persons

Causation

Admissibility of Evidence

Professional Negligence

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
BLOBEL v RYAN
[2010] SADC 107
Judgment of His Honour Judge Nicholson
13 August 2010
TORTS - NEGLIGENCE - ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE - DUTY OF CARE - SPECIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND DUTIES - PROFESSIONAL PERSONS
TORTS - NEGLIGENCE - PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE - WEIGHT AND CREDIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
TORTS - NEGLIGENCE - MISCELLANEOUS DEFENCES - OTHER DEFENCES
Plaintiff convicted before judge and jury of certain criminal offences and imprisoned - Appeal successful and a re-trial ordered. At second trial, plaintiff again convicted and imprisoned. Second appeal successful and acquittal ordered - Plaintiff alleges that the defendent, a solicitor and barrister, admitted to practice in the fused profession in South Australia, negligently breached his professional duty in a number of respects when preparing for and presenting the plaintiff's defence at the first criminal trial.
HELD: Plaintiff failed to establish all but one of the alleged breaches of professional duty and, in any event, failed to establish a causal link between the impugned conduct and the wrongful conviction.
HELD ALSO: That each alleged negligent breach of duty fell within the immunity from suit available to an advocate (whether solicitor or barrister) for work done in court or work done out of court which lead to a decision affecting the conduct of the case in court.
Legal Practitioners Act 1981, referred to.
D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid (2005) 223 CLR 1; [2005] HCA 12; R v Blobel [2000] SASC 322; R v Blobel [2001] SASC 374; Giannarelli v Wraith (1988) 165 CLR 543; [1988] HCA 52; Arthur J S Hall and Co. v Simons [2002] 1 AC 615; Lai Sun Poi v Chamberlains [2005] NZCA 37; Symonds v Vass [2009] NSWCA 139; Keefe v Marks (1989) 16 NSWLR 713; Rondel v Worsley [1969] 1 AC 191; Feldman v A Practitioner (1978) 18 SASR 238; Tame v New South Wales (2002) 211 CLR 317; Blobel and Ors v Blobel and Ors [2005] SADC 117, considered.

BLOBEL v RYAN
[2010] SADC 107
Introduction

The plaintiff has sued the defendant, a legal practitioner, for alleged professional negligence in the conduct of the plaintiff’s defence to certain criminal charges before a judge of this court and jury at Port Augusta in July 2000. The plaintiff was charged with three counts of the rape of his then wife and one of assault. He was convicted of two counts of rape and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. His appeal against conviction was successful. However, following a re-trial before the same judge but different jury and with different defence counsel, the plaintiff was again convicted of two counts of rape and again sentenced to a term of imprisonment. His appeal against the second conviction also was successful but the Court of Criminal Appeal this time ordered that the plaintiff be acquitted of both charges rather than undergo a further re-trial.
It is common ground that the first appeal…

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 Blobel v RYAN

Details

AGLC: Blobel v Ryan [2010] SADC 107
Case: [2010] SADC 107
Decision Date: 13 August 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Blobel v Ryan involves the plaintiff, who was convicted of criminal offences and subsequently imprisoned. After a successful appeal, a re-trial was ordered, during which the plaintiff was again convicted and imprisoned. However, a second appeal resulted in an acquittal. The plaintiff now alleges that the defendant, a solicitor and barrister admitted to practice in the fused profession in South Australia, was negligent in several respects when preparing for and presenting the plaintiff's defence at the first criminal trial.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendant, as the plaintiff's legal representative, owed a duty of care to the plaintiff in the context of the first criminal trial. This involved determining whether the professional relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant created a special relationship that gave rise to a duty of care. The court was also required to consider the defendant's conduct and whether it fell below the standard expected of a reasonable legal practitioner, thus constituting negligence. Additionally, the court had to assess the weight and credibility of the evidence presented by both parties regarding the defendant's conduct and its impact on the outcome of the first criminal trial.

In assessing the case, the court considered the nature of the professional relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant and whether this relationship created a special duty of care. The court determined that a duty of care existed given the professional nature of the relationship. It further examined the defendant's conduct, finding that the defendant's failure to adequately prepare the plaintiff's defence and present it effectively at the first trial constituted a breach of this duty. The court also evaluated the evidence presented by both parties and concluded that the plaintiff had not met the burden of proving negligence on the part of the defendant. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim.

The court ordered that the plaintiff's claim be dismissed and that the defendant be awarded costs associated with the proceedings. The plaintiff was not granted any relief, and the defendant's professional conduct was found to be within acceptable standards.

Orders