JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	28 November 2007
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	13 December 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Francis v Bunnett
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 527

---

Advocates’ immunity – Legal practitioner – Negligence – Breach of retainer – Proceedings settled without hearing – Public policy – Finality – Collateral challenge – Order 23 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 – Appeal from a Master – Statement of claim – Permanent stay – Whether proceedings untenable.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr J Levine	Frank Sanna
For the Defendant	Mr D A Christie	Lander & Rogers

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Background......................................................................................................................................... 2

The Standard to Be Applied Under Order 23............................................................................... 4

The Operation of Advocates’ Immunity........................................................................................ 5

The Essential Issue........................................................................................................................ 6
The Development of Immunity................................................................................................... 7

D’Orta-Ekenaike...................................................................................................................... 12

Settlement of Litigation.............................................................................................................. 16
Submissions of the Defendant................................................................................................... 17

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 18

Orders................................................................................................................................................. 19

HIS HONOUR:

Background

On 27 March 2006 the plaintiff, Louise Francis commenced proceedings in this Court by writ and statement of claim seeking damages against the defendant, Christopher Bunnett, a solicitor. The plaintiff alleges breach of retainer and negligence against the solicitor in relation to the conduct of proceedings on her behalf in the County Court of Victoria. Given the nature of this appeal, it is necessary to set out the relevant portions of the statement of claim:

1.The defendant was at all material times, a practicing solicitor of the Supreme Court of Victoria and was engaged in the conduct of a legal practice.
2.On or about February 2000, the Plaintiff retained and/or employed the Defendant to act on her behalf in and to provide advice in County Court proceeding number 9802439 of 1998 (hereafter called the County Court proceeding) (hereafter called the retainer).
Particulars

The retainer was oral and was constituted by a conversation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, in or about February 2000, in which the Plaintiff asked the Defendant, who had previously acted for her in a related proceeding, for him to refer her to a solicitor with expertise in these matters. The Defendant said, words to the effect, that “he had previously acted against the Defendant’s former solicitor, Andrew O’Bryan for a client and won in a negligence action,” and he expressed an interest in her case. The Plaintiff then requested the Defendant to act for her in the County Court proceeding and the Defendant agreed to act on her behalf.

3. It was an implied term of the retainer:
(a)The Defendant would act fully and faithfully in accordance with the instructions of the Plaintiff.
(b)The Defendant would provide proper advice to the Plaintiff using all reasonable care.
(c)The Defendant would provide proper advice to the Plaintiff on the amount of damages that could be claimed and that were likely to be recoverable in the County Court proceeding.

Grounds of appeal

[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 Francis v Bunnett

Details

AGLC: Francis v Bunnett [2007] VSC 527
Case: [2007] VSC 527
Decision Date: 13 December 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Francis v Bunnett involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Francis, and the defendant, Bunnett, a legal practitioner. The plaintiff alleged that Bunnett was negligent in his conduct of a legal retainer, leading to financial loss. The case was settled without a hearing and the plaintiff later sought to challenge the settlement by bringing proceedings against Bunnett, arguing that the settlement was improper. The matter was brought before the court to determine the availability of a collateral challenge to the settlement and whether the proceedings were untenable.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff could bring a collateral challenge to a settlement agreement reached in prior proceedings, where the defendant had asserted advocates' immunity. The court had to consider the principles of finality, public policy, and the appropriate circumstances under which a collateral challenge to a settlement agreement could be entertained. Additionally, the court needed to examine the requirements and limitations of Order 23 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005, which governs the process for permanent stays of proceedings.

The court found that a collateral challenge to a settlement agreement is not permissible as it undermines the principle of finality of litigation and public policy, which favours the resolution of disputes. The court held that advocates’ immunity, which protects legal practitioners from liability for acts done in the course of advocacy, applied to the settlement process. Consequently, the court granted a permanent stay of the proceedings brought by the plaintiff against the defendant, ruling that the proceedings were untenable. The court concluded that the plaintiff's claim was effectively barred by the prior settlement agreement and the immunity afforded to the defendant.

The final orders of the court were to permanently stay the proceedings brought by the plaintiff against the defendant, thereby affirming the untenability of the plaintiff's claim. The court's decision underscored the importance of finality in litigation and the protection afforded to legal practitioners under advocates’ immunity, barring collateral challenges to settlement agreements.

Orders