David Charles Bott v Trevor John Carter

[2013] HCASL 13

DAVID CHARLES BOTT

v

TREVOR JOHN CARTER & ANOR

[2013] HCASL 13
S129/2012

1. The applicant brought proceedings in the District Court of New South Wales against his former employer, Suttons Motors Australia Pty Ltd, claiming damages for injuries allegedly sustained in the course of his employment.  Judge Rein gave judgment for the defendant on 22 September 2004.  On 6 July 2007 the applicant commenced proceedings in the Common Law Division of the Supreme Court of New South Wales claiming damages for the alleged negligence of his legal representatives who had acted for him in the proceedings before Rein DCJ. 

2. On 2 April 2009 Hislop J struck out the applicant's fourth amended statement of claim and ordered that the proceedings be dismissed generally[1].

   [1]Bott v Carter [2009] NSWSC 236.

3. The applicant was granted leave to appeal from that part of the orders of Hislop J dismissing the proceedings generally[2].  The Court of Appeal (McColl, Basten and Whealy JJA) dismissed the appeal.  The Court had before it a draft of a further pleading reformulating the applicant's claims.  The Court found that no claim for loss falling outside the scope of the advocate's immunity had been identified and that the order dismissing the proceedings had been properly made[3].

   [2]Bott v Carter [2010] NSWCA 21.

   [3]Bott v Carter [2012] NSWCA 89 at [43].

4. The applicant seeks special leave to appeal.  His prolix summary of argument contains a deal of irrelevant material.  The decision of the Court of Appeal was an orthodox application of the principles enunciated in D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid[4].  The dismissal of the proceedings generally followed five attempts to articulate an arguable case against either of the respondents.  The decision of the Court of Appeal was plainly correct. 

   [4](2005) 223 CLR 1; [2005] HCA 12.

5. The application is dismissed with costs.

6. Pursuant to r 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application with costs. 

J.D. Heydon
26 February 2013 V.M. Bell