Beazley JA at [1]; Basten JA at [253]; Barrett JA at [276]; Hoeben JA at [284]; Sackville AJA at [285]
Decision:
1. Appeal allowed;
2. Set aside orders made in the Court below;
3. Judgment for the defendant on the statement of claim;
4. The respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal and at first instance. The respondent to have a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951;
5. The notice of motion filed 4 September 2012 dismissed with costs.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
Catchwords:
TORTS - Negligence - Legal practitioner's duty of care - Legal practitioner retained to advise in respect of the Conveyancing Act 1919, s 88K - Application not granted - Whether legal practitioner's advice negligent - Whether advice protected by advocates' immunity - Principle of finality of litigation.
LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Advocates' immunity - Application of principle in D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid - Scope of advocates' immunity - Whether alleged negligent conduct led to a decision affecting the conduct of the case in court.
[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 Donnellan v Woodland
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Donnellan v Woodland [2012] NSWCA 433
Case
[2012] NSWCA 433
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Donnellan v Woodland*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered a claim brought by the plaintiff, Ms. Donnellan, against her former legal practitioner, Mr. Woodland. Ms. Donnellan alleged that Mr. Woodland had been negligent in his advice concerning an application under section 88K of the *Conveyancing Act 1919* (NSW). The application, which sought to impose an easement, was ultimately unsuccessful.
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether Mr. Woodland's advice constituted negligence, and crucially, whether the doctrine of advocates' immunity, as affirmed in *D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid*, protected him from liability. The court was required to determine the scope of advocates' immunity and whether the alleged negligent conduct related to decisions affecting the conduct of the case in court, thereby engaging the principle of finality of litigation.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders made by the court below and entering judgment for the defendant, Mr. Woodland. The court reasoned that the plaintiff's claim was barred by the doctrine of advocates' immunity. The alleged negligence related to advice given in relation to court proceedings and the conduct of the case, which fell within the ambit of the immunity designed to ensure the finality of litigation. Consequently, the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the appeal and the proceedings at first instance.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal allowed;
2. Set aside orders made in the Court below;
3. Judgment for the defendant on the statement of claim;
4. The respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal and at first instance. The respondent to have a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951;
5. The notice of motion filed 4 September 2012 dismissed with costs.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]