Giannarelli v Wraith

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal in *Giannarelli v Wraith*, brought by the plaintiff, Mr. Giannarelli, against the defendant, Mr. Wraith, a barrister. The dispute concerned allegations of negligence against the barrister in his conduct of the plaintiff's defamation case in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff sought to recover damages for the loss he allegedly suffered as a result of the barrister's alleged negligence.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether a barrister owes a duty of care to their client in the conduct of litigation, and if so, whether that duty extends to the manner in which the barrister conducts the case in court, including the presentation of evidence and the making of submissions. This question involved considering the nature of the barrister's immunity from suit for negligence in relation to their conduct in court.

The High Court, by a majority, held that a barrister does owe a duty of care to their client in the conduct of litigation. However, the majority also affirmed the principle of barristerial immunity, finding that barristers are immune from suit for negligence in respect of their conduct of a case in court. This immunity was justified on public policy grounds, including the need for barristers to exercise their forensic judgment freely and without fear of subsequent litigation, and to avoid the potential for conflicting duties and the undermining of the administration of justice. The court reasoned that while a duty of care exists, the immunity protects the barrister's actions within the courtroom.

The appeal was dismissed, with the High Court upholding the decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria, which had found that the barrister was immune from suit for the alleged negligence.