Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Golden v Koffel [2022] NSWCA 8 Hearing dates: 4 February 2022 Date of orders: 7 February 2022 Decision date: 07 February 2022 Before: Gleeson JA
White JADecision: Summons for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs
Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE — application for leave to appeal against summary dismissal of — no reasonable cause of action — where applicant sued his former solicitors — advocates’ immunity — no question of principle
Cases Cited: Attwells v Jackson Lalic Lawyers Pty Ltd (2016) 259 CLR 1
D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid (2005) 223 CLR 1
Giannarelli v Wraith (1988) 165 CLR 543
Golden v V’landys [2015] NSWSC 1709
Golden v V’landys [2016] NSWCA 300
Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Joseph Paul Golden (Applicant)
Ross Koffel (First Respondent)
Koffels Pty Ltd (Second Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Applicant is self-represented
Mr I Griscti (Respondents)
Gilchrist Connell (Respondents)
File Number(s): 2021/193076 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- Supreme Court of NSW
- Jurisdiction:
- Common Law
- Citation:
- Date of Decision:
- 18 June 2021
- Before:
- Cavanagh J
- File Number(s):
- 2020/322134
Judgment
-
THE COURT: This is an application for leave to appeal from orders of a judge of the Common Law Division that the applicant’s proceeding be summarily dismissed with costs (Golden v Koffel [2021] NSWSC 739, Cavanagh J).
-
The applicant, Mr Golden, was a racehorse breeder and trainer. On 8 June 2011 the Chief Executive of Racing NSW, Mr Peter V’landys, on behalf of Racing NSW, decided that Mr Golden’s trainer’s licence should be suspended for six months. On 24 June 2011 Mr V’landys determined that Mr Golden should be warned off racetracks controlled by Racing NSW indefinitely.
-
In 2013 Mr Golden commenced proceedings challenging those decisions. Initially all his claims failed (Golden v V’landys [2015] NSWSC 1709, Adamson J). On appeal (Golden v V’landys [2016] NSWCA 300) Mr Golden was partially successful. The decision to warn off Mr Golden from all racetracks controlled by Racing NSW was quashed and the respondents (Mr V’landys and Racing NSW) were ordered to pay 75% of his costs.
-
What prompted the decisions of Mr V’landys for Racing NSW was Mr Golden’s abusive complaints of corruption in the administration or oversight by Racing NSW of a Commonwealth Government scheme, the Commercial Horse Assistance Payments Scheme (“CHAPS”), to provide assistance to those involved in the horse racing industry who were adversely affected by an outbreak in 2007 of the equine influenza virus.
-
The respondents to the present application, Koffels Pty Ltd and Mr Koffel, acted for Mr Golden in the proceedings before Adamson J.
-
In 2018 Mr Golden instituted a second proceeding in the Common Law Division in which he represented himself. He sought to reventilate his earlier claims that had been disposed of, as well as challenge a later decision adverse to him in 2017. Those proceedings were…
Continue reading Golden v Koffel
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Golden v Koffel [2022] NSWCA 8
- Case
- [2022] NSWCA 8
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the applicants had demonstrated a sufficient question of principle to warrant leave to appeal against the summary dismissal. This involved considering the application of the doctrine of advocates' immunity in the context of the applicants' allegations.
The Court of Appeal found that the applicants had not raised a question of principle that justified granting leave to appeal. The allegations of negligence related to the conduct of the litigation itself, which fell squarely within the established scope of advocates' immunity. The court applied the principles of advocates' immunity as previously determined by Australian courts, finding no error in the summary dismissal of the claim.
Consequently, the summons for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Summons for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.