High Court—Practice—Costs—Taxation—Taxing officer—Powers—Legal professional privilege—Effect of refusal to tender privileged documents—Whether other party entitled to see tendered privileged documents—High Court Rules, O. 71, r. 70.
Decision
McHUGH J. The Registrar, sitting as a taxing officer, has referred to me four questions arising in a taxation of costs in the Court. The reference was made pursuant to O.71, r.19(3) of the High Court Rules ("the Rules"). The first question concerns the power of the taxing officer to require the respondents to produce documents for the purpose of determining if there was a binding agreement between the respondents and their solicitors that the respondents would not have to pay to the solicitors the costs of the proceedings in this Court. The second question concerns the right of the respondents to refuse to produce the documents on the ground that they are the subject of legal professional privilege. The third question concerns the power of the taxing officer to compel production of the documents and his right to refuse to tax the respondents' bill of costs until the documents are produced. The fourth question concerns the right of the taxing officer to give the appellants copies of any documents which the respondents produce. The Background to the Questions
2. On 13 October 1988, this Court dismissed an appeal by the appellants against an order of the Supreme Court of Victoria and ordered that they pay the respondents' costs of the appeal. The respondents submitted for taxation a bill of costs totalling $44,159.23. The appellants raised a number of general objections to the bill. But the principal objection was that the respondents were not entitled to recover the costs of the appeal because they were never at risk in respect of costs. The basis of this contention was that the costs were, and always were intended, to be fully paid by the respondents' insurer. Since a party cannot recover costs if that party is not liable in any circumstances to pay his or her solicitors' costs, the taxing officer had to determine whether there was an agreement between the respondents and their solicitors that the respondents would not have to pay their solicitors' costs in any event. (See generally Adams v. London Improved Motor Coach Builders Ltd. (1921) 1 KB 495; Davies v. Taylor (No. 2) (1974) AC 225.)
3. At the request of the taxing officer, both parties made written submissions in respect of the preliminary objections raised by the appellants. After considering these submissions, the taxing officer formed the opinion that it would be necessary for him to have more factual material before he could make a decision. On 19 April 1990, he wrote to the solicitors for the respondents requesting that the respondents produce at the taxation the following documents: (a) a copy of the insurance policy between the respondents and
their solicitors;
(b) all correspondence between the…
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 Giannarelli v Wraith (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Giannarelli v Wraith (No 2) [1991] HCA 2
Case
[1991] HCA 2
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Giannarelli v Wraith (No 2)*, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Mr. Giannarelli against a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria. Mr. Giannarelli had sued Mr. Wraith, a barrister, for negligence in the conduct of his defence in a previous criminal trial. The core of the dispute concerned allegations that Mr. Wraith had failed to exercise reasonable care and skill in his professional capacity as Mr. Giannarelli's legal representative.
The central legal issue before the High Court was whether a barrister owes a duty of care to their client in the conduct of a case, and if so, whether that duty extends to the manner in which the barrister conducts the trial. Specifically, the court had to determine if the immunity from suit for negligence previously afforded to barristers in certain circumstances should be maintained or abolished.
McHugh J, in his judgment, affirmed that barristers do owe a duty of care to their clients. However, he reasoned that the unique position of a barrister, particularly their duty to the court, necessitates a distinction in the application of negligence principles. His Honour concluded that the immunity from suit for negligence in the conduct of a trial should be retained. This immunity is justified by the need for barristers to exercise independent judgment in the best interests of justice, without the fear of subsequent litigation. The court recognised that imposing a duty of care that would allow a client to sue their barrister for errors in judgment during a trial could undermine the administration of justice and the barrister's ability to act freely.
The High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding the principle that barristers are immune from suit for negligence in the conduct of their cases in court.