Giannarelli & Ors v Wraith & Ors; Shulkes v Wraith

The case of *Giannarelli & Ors v Wraith & Ors; Shulkes v Wraith* involved appeals to the High Court of Australia concerning the liability of barristers for negligence. The primary appellants, Giannarelli and others, and a separate appellant, Shulkes, had been prosecuted for perjury based on evidence given before the Costigan Royal Commission. They subsequently brought actions against their legal representatives, including barristers and solicitors, alleging negligence in the conduct of their defence.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether a barrister, acting in their capacity as counsel in court or before a tribunal, could be held liable for negligence in the conduct and management of those proceedings. This question arose in the context of the appellants' perjury prosecutions, where a critical point of contention was the admissibility of their evidence given before the Royal Commission, particularly in light of section 6DD of the *Commonwealth Royal Commissions Act*. This section rendered such evidence inadmissible in proceedings other than those brought under that Act, and the prosecutions in question were brought under Victorian law.

The High Court considered the established position that barristers, due to their unique role in the administration of justice and the need for their independent judgment in court, were generally immune from suit for negligence in the conduct of litigation. This immunity was rooted in public policy considerations, aiming to ensure that barristers could exercise their professional duties without fear of subsequent litigation. The Court examined whether this immunity should extend to all aspects of a barrister's work, including advice given outside of court.

Ultimately, the High Court held that barristers are immune from suit for negligence in respect of their conduct and management of court proceedings. This immunity is based on the fundamental principles of the administration of justice and the need for barristers to act independently and fearlessly in court. The Court affirmed that this immunity extends to the conduct of litigation in all its stages, including advice given in relation to those proceedings.