Giannarelli v Wraith (No 2)

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.