Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: HAYES v JONES [1998] NSWCA 102 Decision date: 27 July 1998
See Attachment (PDF)
Details
- AGLC
- New South Wales Bar Association v Maddocks [1998] NSWCA 102
- Case
- [1998] NSWCA 102
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The New South Wales Bar Association (the Bar Association) sought to strike out the defence of Mr. Maddocks, a barrister, in proceedings brought against him by the Bar Association. The dispute concerned allegations of professional misconduct against Mr. Maddocks. The matter came before the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether Mr. Maddocks' defence, which asserted that he had acted on the instructions of his client and that his conduct was therefore justified, disclosed a valid defence to the charges of professional misconduct. The Court was required to consider the extent to which a barrister's duty to their client can excuse conduct that might otherwise be considered professional misconduct.
The Court reasoned that while a barrister is bound to act on the instructions of their client, this duty is not absolute and does not provide a licence to engage in conduct that is contrary to the administration of justice or professional standards. The Court held that the defence as pleaded was insufficient because it failed to address the substance of the allegations of misconduct, which involved breaches of the barrister's professional obligations beyond merely following client instructions. The Court applied the principle that barristers have an overriding duty to the court and the administration of justice, which can, in certain circumstances, require them to refuse to follow client instructions.
The Court ordered that Mr. Maddocks' defence be struck out, with leave granted to file an amended defence within a specified period.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether Mr. Maddocks' defence, which asserted that he had acted on the instructions of his client and that his conduct was therefore justified, disclosed a valid defence to the charges of professional misconduct. The Court was required to consider the extent to which a barrister's duty to their client can excuse conduct that might otherwise be considered professional misconduct.
The Court reasoned that while a barrister is bound to act on the instructions of their client, this duty is not absolute and does not provide a licence to engage in conduct that is contrary to the administration of justice or professional standards. The Court held that the defence as pleaded was insufficient because it failed to address the substance of the allegations of misconduct, which involved breaches of the barrister's professional obligations beyond merely following client instructions. The Court applied the principle that barristers have an overriding duty to the court and the administration of justice, which can, in certain circumstances, require them to refuse to follow client instructions.
The Court ordered that Mr. Maddocks' defence be struck out, with leave granted to file an amended defence within a specified period.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.