Jimenez v Watson - [2020] NSWDC 419

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Jimenez v Watson [2020] NSWDC 419
Hearing dates: 20 and 21 February 2020
Date of orders: 28 July 2020
Decision date: 28 July 2020
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: P Taylor SC DCJ
Decision:
(1)   Defendant’s notice of motion for summary dismissal is granted.
(2)   The proceedings are dismissed.
(3)   The plaintiff to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE — Summary disposal — Dismissal of proceedings - No reasonable cause of action disclosed – Advocate’s immunity

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 91FA, s 91H
Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001, s 78
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 10
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s 473.1, s 474.19

Cases Cited:
Application by Alex Jimenez under s 78 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 [2016] NSWSC 635
Attwells v Jackson Lalic Lawyers Pty Ltd (2016) 259 CLR 1; [2016] HCA 16
D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid (2005) 223 CLR 1
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (1964) 112 CLR 125
Giannarelli v Wraith (1988) 165 CLR 543
Jimenez v R [2017] NSWCCA 1
Kendirjian v Lepore (2017) 259 CLR 275
Maxwell v The Queen (1996) 184 CLR 501; [1996] HCA 46

Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Alexander Jimenez (plaintiff)
Christopher Watson (defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr S Robertson with Mr A Brown (plaintiff)
Mr N O Owens SC with Mr A L Oakes (defendant)
Solicitors:
Summers Legal (plaintiff)
YPOL Lawyers (defendant)

File Number(s): 2019/152227
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

A. Introduction

Christopher Watson, a solicitor, seeks summary dismissal of negligence proceedings commenced against him by his former client, Alexander Jimenez. Mr Watson relies on the principle of advocate’s immunity.

B. Issues

The issue to be determined is whether the law of advocate’s immunity applies with sufficient clarity to warrant summary dismissal of Mr Jimenez’s claim.

C. Background

On 2 June 2010 Mr Jimenez was arrested and subsequently charged with an offence of possession of child abuse material contrary to s 91H(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), and using a carriage service to access child pornography material contrary to s 474.19(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth).
Mr Watson, as Mr Jimenez’s solicitor, successfully made representations to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions that the Commonwealth offence be withdrawn and the State offence be dealt with summarily.
Among the differences between the State and Commonwealth offences was that under the Commonwealth offence “child abuse material” was defined,[1] in part, as “material that depicts a person…who…is, or appears to be, under 18 years of age” whereas for the State offence a “child” was defined to be “a person who is under the age of 16 years”. [2] Mr Watson was apparently unaware of this lower age applicable to the State offence, and Mr Jimenez was not advised of the different age defining a child. Mr Jimenez pleaded guilty to the State offence.
1. S 473.1, Criminal Code…

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 Jimenez v Watson

Details

AGLC: Jimenez v Watson [2020] NSWDC 419
Case: [2020] NSWDC 419
Decision Date: 28 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Jimenez v Watson, the plaintiff, Mr. Jimenez, sought to hold the defendant, Ms. Watson, accountable for defamatory statements allegedly made during a public address. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was tasked with resolving the dispute. The plaintiff claimed that Ms. Watson, a legal practitioner, defamed him by making false and injurious statements about his professional conduct during a speech, aiming to discredit him in his community and professional circles.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff had disclosed a reasonable cause of action against the defendant, given that Ms. Watson was acting within the scope of her professional duties as an advocate. The court also needed to consider whether the statements made by Ms. Watson were protected by the doctrine of advocate’s immunity, which generally shields legal professionals from liability for statements made in the course of their duties if they are made honestly and without malice. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the plaintiff's claims were legally and factually plausible enough to warrant further proceedings.

The court found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a reasonable cause of action against the defendant. The statements in question were made by Ms. Watson in the course of her professional duties, and the court accepted that they were made honestly and without malice. Furthermore, the court held that the doctrine of advocate’s immunity applied, as the statements were integral to the defendant's role as an advocate. Consequently, the court ruled that the plaintiff's claims were not legally and factually sufficient to proceed, and the defendant's notice of motion for summary dismissal was granted. The proceedings were dismissed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Defendant’s notice of motion for summary dismissal is granted.

(2) The proceedings are dismissed.

(3) The plaintiff to pay the costs of the proceedings.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Jimenez v Watson [2020] NSWDC 419
Hearing dates:	20 and 21 February 2020
Date of orders:	28 July 2020
Decision date:	28 July 2020
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	P Taylor SC DCJ
Decision:	(1) Defendant’s notice of motion for summary dismissal is granted. (2) The proceedings are dismissed. (3) The plaintiff to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Catchwords:	CIVIL PROCEDURE — Summary disposal — Dismissal of proceedings - No reasonable cause of action disclosed – Advocate’s immunity
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 91FA, s 91H Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001, s 78 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 10 Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s 473.1, s 474.19
Cases Cited:	Application by Alex Jimenez under s 78 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 [2016] NSWSC 635 Attwells v Jackson Lalic Lawyers Pty Ltd (2016) 259 CLR 1; [2016] HCA 16 D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid (2005) 223 CLR 1 General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (1964) 112 CLR 125 Giannarelli v Wraith (1988) 165 CLR 543 Jimenez v R [2017] NSWCCA 1 Kendirjian v Lepore (2017) 259 CLR 275 Maxwell v The Queen (1996) 184 CLR 501; [1996] HCA 46
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Alexander Jimenez (plaintiff) Christopher Watson (defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr S Robertson with Mr A Brown (plaintiff) Mr N O Owens SC with Mr A L Oakes (defendant) Solicitors: Summers Legal (plaintiff) YPOL Lawyers (defendant)
File Number(s):	2019/152227
Publication restriction:	None