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 alleged negligence of Victoria Legal Aid in its handling of a personal injury claim brought by Mr. D'Orta-Ekenaike. Mr. D'Orta-Ekenaike claimed that Victoria Legal Aid, through its employed solicitor, failed to properly advise him regarding a settlement offer, leading to a less favourable outcome than he would otherwise have achieved.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether a solicitor owes a duty of care to their client in the conduct of litigation, and if so, the scope of that duty. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the duty extended to advising on the merits of a settlement offer in a way that would prevent the client from suffering a loss due to negligent advice. The court also considered the application of the rule in *Rondel v Worsley* which generally precludes claims against barristers for negligence in the conduct of a case in court.

The High Court, in a joint judgment by Gleeson CJ and Hayne J, held that a solicitor does owe a duty of care to their client in the conduct of litigation, including the conduct of settlement negotiations. However, the court clarified that this duty does not extend to making a claim against the solicitor for negligence in the conduct of litigation itself, where the client's loss is a consequence of the litigation. This was based on the principle that the court's conduct of litigation should be final and not subject to collateral attack through negligence claims against legal practitioners. The court distinguished between the solicitor's duty in advising on settlement and the conduct of the case in court, finding that the former could give rise to a claim, but the latter was protected by the rule in *Rondel v Worsley*.

The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the lower courts were set aside.