D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid

The High Court of Australia considered the appeal in *D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid*. The dispute concerned the liability of Victoria Legal Aid for alleged negligence in the conduct of legal proceedings on behalf of the appellant, Ms D'Orta-Ekenaike. The core of the claim was that Legal Aid, through its appointed solicitors, had failed to properly advise Ms D'Orta-Ekenaike regarding a settlement offer in a personal injury claim, leading to a disadvantageous outcome for her.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether a barrister, acting as an officer of the court, owed a duty of care to their client in respect of work done in connection with the conduct and management of litigation. This question was framed by the Court as whether the immunity from suit for barristers, in relation to their conduct of litigation, should be maintained or abolished. A related issue was whether solicitors could be held liable for the negligence of a barrister they engaged, particularly if the barrister enjoyed immunity.

The High Court, by a majority, affirmed the principle of barristerial immunity. The majority reasoned that the immunity was a long-standing feature of the common law, designed to protect the administration of justice from collateral attacks. It was held that barristers, in their conduct of litigation, act as officers of the court, and their duty to the court in the proper administration of justice could be compromised if they were constantly exposed to the risk of negligence suits from disappointed clients. This immunity extended to solicitors in respect of the work done by a barrister they engaged. The Court considered that the existing mechanisms for professional discipline and review of judicial decisions were sufficient safeguards.

The appeal was dismissed.