Criddle v Monck - [2024] WASC 283

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION:   CRIDDLE -v- MONCK [2024] WASC 283
CORAM:   HOWARD J
HEARD:   30 MAY 2024
DELIVERED          :   12 AUGUST 2024
PUBLISHED           :   12 AUGUST 2024
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1057 of 2021
BETWEEN:   ERRON JAMES CRIDDLE
Plaintiff
AND
STEPHANIE MONCK
Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Defendant's summary judgment application - Leave granted to bring application out of time - Whether advocates' immunity applies - Where plaintiff's allegations were of 'non-work' out of court - Summary judgment application granted

Legislation:

Criminal Code 1913 (WA)

Result:

Application for summary judgment granted

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	In Person
Defendant	:	Mr A J Crocker

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	In Person
Defendant	:	MDS Legal

Cases referred to in decision(s):

ABC (A Pseudonym) v Reader Lawyers & Mediators [2021] WASCA 202
Criddle v The State of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 17
Day v Rogers [2011] NSWCA 124
D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid (2005) 223 CLR 1
Giannarelli v Wraith (1988) 165 CLR 543
Golden v Koffel [2022] NSWCA 8
Jimenez v Watson [2021] NSWCA 55
Philip Walton trading as Pitcher Walton & Co v Efato Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 86
Toth v Stewart Law Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCA 85

HOWARD J:

The plaintiff commenced these proceedings by an indorsed writ on 2 February 2021, which stated:
The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is for damages arising from wrongful conviction due [to] the negligence of the defendant regarding WADC/CRIM/PER/IND908/2014.
The plaintiff's current pleading, which is the subject of this application by the defendant, is an Amended Statement of Claim filed 7 December 2023 (statement of claim or SOC).
The defendant is, and was, a legal practitioner who represented the plaintiff in the District Court of Western Australia where he was charged with one offence contrary to s 320(2) of the Criminal Code 1913 (WA) that: on or about 3 February 2012, [the plaintiff] sexually penetrated [E], a child under the age of 13 years, by penetrating her vagina with his finger.
The defendant represented the plaintiff during the first day of the trial and the defendant cross‑examined the complainant and her mother.
The plaintiff then terminated the defendant's retainer because of his concern about her level of preparation and the content of her cross‑examination of the complainant. He applied to adjourn the trial to obtain alternative counsel, but that application was refused. The plaintiff represented himself for the balance of the trial.[1]
[1] Criddle v The State of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 17 [4].
After the trial by jury in March 2015, the plaintiff was found guilty and was convicted. He was sentenced to three years' immediate imprisonment with eligibility for parole.
The plaintiff appealed against that conviction successfully and his conviction was quashed with a retrial being ordered: Criddle v The State of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 17. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal at the conclusion of the oral argument and the plaintiff was released from custody pending the…

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 Criddle v Monck

Details

AGLC: Criddle v Monck [2024] WASC 283
Case: [2024] WASC 283
Decision Date: 12 AUGUST 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute in Criddle v Monck arose before the Federal Court of Australia, where the plaintiff, Criddle, sought damages against Monck, a defendant who had applied for summary judgment. The central issue was whether Monck's application for summary judgment could be heard out of time and if advocates' immunity applied to protect Monck from the plaintiff's allegations of non-work-related misconduct. The court needed to determine whether these allegations, which were outside the scope of the professional work performed by Monck, could be considered in granting the summary judgment application.

The court had to decide whether the defendant's application for summary judgment, made outside the usual time limits, could be permitted. This involved examining whether the plaintiff's claims of non-work-related misconduct by Monck could be ignored under advocates' immunity. The court also needed to assess whether the plaintiff's allegations, if true, could undermine the merits of the case and whether they were relevant to the summary judgment application. Furthermore, the court had to determine if there was any prejudice to the plaintiff in allowing the application out of time.

The court granted leave for the defendant's summary judgment application to proceed out of time and held that advocates' immunity applied to the plaintiff's allegations. The court found that the allegations of non-work-related misconduct were irrelevant to the summary judgment application, as they did not affect the merits of the case. The court concluded that there was no prejudice to the plaintiff in permitting the application to be heard out of time, and thus, the summary judgment application was granted.

Orders