Legal Research
Cases
Corp v Robinson

Corp v Robinson

Case [2012] WASC 490 25 January 2013

Breach of Duty of Care

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Professional Negligence

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CORP -v- ROBINSON [2012] WASC 490

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2012] WASC 490
Case No:	CIV:3014/2011	Heard:	16 NOVEMBER 2012
Coram:	KENNETH MARTIN J	Delivered:	25/01/13
No of pages:	38	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Judgment for defendants
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	STUART ADRIAN CORP HAYDN ROSS ROBINSON JAMES LINDSAY GLISSAN QC JAMES WHYTE
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Defendants' summary judgment and strike out applications Barristers Solicitor Advocates' immunity Non-attendance at concluding days of criminal trial Conviction by jury Professional negligence Causation Damage Alleged loss of chance of acquittal on all criminal charges Intermediate result Challenge to finality of intermediate decision Abuse of process
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Alcoa of Australia Ltd v Apache Energy Ltd [2012] WASC 209 Alpine Holdings Pty Ltd v Feinauer [2008] WASCA 85 Arthur J S Hall & Co v Simons [1999] 3 WLR 873 D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid [2005] HCA 12; (2005) 223 CLR 1 Fergusson v Lewis (1879) 14 LJ 700 Giannarelli v Wraith [1988] HCA 52; (1988) 165 CLR 543 Goddard Elliott v Fritsch [2012] VSC 87 Mule v The Queen [2005] HCA 49 Smith v The Queen [2008] WASCA 128 Stuart v Kirkland-Veenstra [2009] HCA 15; (2009) 237 CLR 215 Talbot & Olivier (a firm) v Witcombe [2006] WASCA 87; (2006) 32 WAR 179 Tame v New South Wales [2002] HCA 35; (2002) 211 CLR 317

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : CORP -v- ROBINSON [2012] WASC 490 CORAM : KENNETH MARTIN J HEARD : 16 NOVEMBER 2012 DELIVERED : 25 JANUARY 2013 FILE NO/S : CIV 3014 of 2011 BETWEEN : STUART ADRIAN CORP

Plaintiff

AND

HAYDN ROSS ROBINSON

First Defendant

JAMES LINDSAY GLISSAN QC

Second Defendant

JAMES WHYTE

Third Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Defendants' summary judgment and strike out applications - Barristers - Solicitor - Advocates' immunity - Non-attendance at concluding days of criminal trial - Conviction by jury - Professional negligence - Causation - Damage - Alleged loss of chance of acquittal on all criminal charges - Intermediate result - Challenge to finality of intermediate decision - Abuse of process

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Judgment for defendants

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr D Grace QC & Mr M Bruce

First Defendant : Mr S F Popperwell

Second Defendant : Mr S M Davies SC & Ms K R Lendich

Third Defendant : Mr S Vandongen SC

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Bennett & Co

First Defendant : Pynt & Partners

Second Defendant : Ashurst Australia

Third Defendant : DLA Piper Australia

(Page 3)

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Alcoa of Australia Ltd v Apache Energy Ltd [2012] WASC 209
Alpine Holdings Pty Ltd v Feinauer [2008] WASCA 85
Arthur J S Hall & Co v Simons [1999] 3 WLR 873
D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid [2005] HCA 12; (2005) 223 CLR 1
Fergusson v Lewis (1879) 14 LJ 700
Giannarelli v Wraith [1988] HCA 52; (1988)

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 Corp v Robinson

Details

AGLC: Corp v Robinson [2012] WASC 490
Case: [2012] WASC 490
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stuart Adrian Corp initiated proceedings against Haydn Ross Robinson, James Lindsay Glissan QC, and James Whyte, alleging professional negligence in their representation of him during a criminal trial. The case was heard by Justice Kenneth Martin in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The defendants applied for summary judgment and to strike out certain parts of the plaintiff's statement of claim, arguing that advocates' immunity rendered the claims untenable. The court found in favour of the defendants, dismissing the plaintiff's claims. The judge held that the plaintiff's claims were essentially challenges to the finality of the jury's verdicts, which were protected by advocates' immunity. The immunity principle, as endorsed in D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid, prevents challenges to the finality of intermediate decisions in litigation, even if those decisions are alleged to have resulted from negligent conduct. The judge also found that the plaintiff's claims against the instructing solicitor, Mr Robinson, were similarly protected by the immunity principle, as the decisions regarding representation during the trial were tactical and connected to in-court work. The court granted summary judgment in favour of all defendants, dismissing the plaintiff's claims with costs.

Orders