Francis v Bunnett

[2011] VSC 443

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 5388 of 2006

LOUISE FRANCIS	Plaintiff
v
CHRISTOPHER LINDSAY BUNNETT	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	HARGRAVE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	26 July 2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	9 September 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Francis v Bunnett
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 443

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Want of prosecution – Whether delay inordinate and inexcusable – Whether delay caused increased risk fair trial not possible – Whether inferred prejudice – Proceeding dismissed for want of prosecution. 

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr P Willis	Foster Nicholson Legal
For the Defendant	Mr D Christie	Lander & Rogers

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Issues.................................................................................................................................................... 2

Is the delay inordinate?..................................................................................................................... 4

Is the delay inexcusable?.................................................................................................................. 6

First Trial Date: 15 September 2009.............................................................................................. 12

Second Trial Date: 23 March 2010................................................................................................. 12

Third Trial Date: 21 September 2010............................................................................................ 13

Fourth Trial Date: 4 May 2011........................................................................................................ 14

Is there a substantial risk that a fair trial is not possible and, if so, was that risk contributed to by the delay?........................................................................................................................................... 15

Has the delay caused serious prejudice to Mr Bunnett?.......................................................... 17

Does justice demand that the proceeding be dismissed?........................................................ 18

HIS HONOUR:

Issues

1. In March 1993, more than 18 years ago, Louise Francis was in a taxi after a day at the races.  Police stopped the taxi and breath-tested the driver.  Ms Francis’s journey was delayed.  She spoke with a police officer.  A dispute resulted.  Ms Francis contends that she was assaulted by the police officer, handcuffed and ‘thrown into’ a police divisional van. 

1. In May 1998, Ms Francis sued the police officer and the State of Victoria in the County Court, claiming damages for assault and breach of duty.  Christopher Bunnett was Ms Francis’s solicitor in the County Court proceeding at relevant times. 

1. The County Court proceeding was fixed for trial on 30 March 2000.  There were settlement negotiations in the week before trial.  Ms Francis alleges that Mr Bunnett’s retainer was terminated during the negotiations, but he nevertheless proceeded to agree a settlement on her behalf – without her authority and for a sum less than she was prepared to accept.  She refused to sign documents recording the settlement. 

1. In March 2004, the County Court determined that Ms Francis was bound by the settlement.  Judgment was entered in her favour for the amount agreed by Mr Bunnett on her behalf - $108,000. 

1. On 27 March 2006, Ms Francis commenced this proceeding against Mr Bunnett.  She alleges that Mr Bunnett’s conduct in settling the County Court proceeding, without her instructions and at an under- value, caused her to lose the opportunity to run her case at trial and to recover damages significantly greater than $108,000.  She claims damages totalling $1,895,000. 

1. This proceeding was commenced on the day before expiry of a six year limitation period for civil claims of this kind.[1]  Given her late start, Ms Francis had a duty to prosecute her claim in a prompt and…