Court of Appeal
New South Wales
Case Title: Nikolaidis v Satouris Medium Neutral Citation: [2014] NSWCA 448 Hearing Date(s): 10 December 2014 Decision Date: 19 December 2014 Before: Beazley P at [1]; Barrett JA at [2]; Ward JA at [51] Decision: 1. In relation to ground 1, ground 3, ground 6 (as it relates to the matters in grounds 1, 3 and 7) and ground 7 in the applicant's amended draft notice of appeal, refuse leave to appeal.
2. Direct that the applicant do within fourteen days file a notice of appeal in the form of his amended draft notice of appeal, excluding ground 1, ground 3, ground 6 (as it relates to the matters in grounds 1, 3 and 7) and ground 7.
3. In relation to ground 2, ground 4 and ground 6 (as it relates to the matters in grounds 2 and 4) as set out in the applicant's amended draft notice of appeal, grant leave to appeal and dismiss the appeal.
4. Order that the applicant pay the respondents' costs of the proceedings in this Court.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
Catchwords: PROFESSIONS AND TRADES - lawyers - duties and liabilities - advocate's immunity from suit - whether the immunity applies where proceedings in respect of allegedly deficient services rendered in connection with litigation are brought upon a statutory cause of action for misleading or deceptive conduct. Legislation Cited: Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW)
Fair Trading Amendment (Australian Consumer Law) Act 2010 (NSW).Cases Cited: Alpine Holdings Pty Ltd v Feinauer [2008] WASCA 85
Baker v Campbell [1983] HCA 39; 153 CLR 52
Boland v Yates Property Corp Pty Ltd [1999] HCA 64; 74 ALJR 209
Donellan v Woodland [2012] NSWCA 433
D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid [2005] HCA 12; 223 CLR 1
Gett v Tabet [2009] NSWCA 76; 254 ALR 504
Giannarelli v Wraith [1988] HCA 52; 165 CLR 543
Gibbons v Duffell [1932] HCA 26; 47 CLR 520
Goddard Elliott (a firm) v Fritsch [2012] VSC 87
Gray v Morris [2004] QCA 5; [2004] 2 Qd R 118
Lacey v Attorney General of Queensland [2011] HCA 10; 242 CLR 573
Le Mesurier v Connor [1929] HCA 41; 42 CLR 481
MacRae v Stevens [1996] Aust Torts Reports 81-405
Meadow v General Medical Council [2006] EWCA Civ 1390, [2007] QB 462
NT Pubco Pty Ltd v Strazdins [2014] NTSC 8
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; 194 CLR 355
Yates Property Corp Pty Ltd v Boland (1997) 145 ALR 169
Young v Hones (No 2) [2013] NSWSC…
Continue reading Nikolaidis v Satouris
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Nikolaidis v Satouris [2014] NSWCA 448
- Case
- [2014] NSWCA 448
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the advocate's immunity from suit, a long-standing common law principle, extended to protect lawyers when their allegedly deficient services, rendered in connection with litigation, were pursued through a statutory cause of action for misleading or deceptive conduct.
The Court of Appeal considered the scope and application of advocate's immunity. It reasoned that the immunity is designed to protect the integrity of the judicial process by preventing collateral attacks on judicial decisions. However, the Court distinguished between claims that seek to re-litigate issues already determined by a court and claims based on statutory causes of action that do not necessarily require a re-examination of concluded judicial findings. The Court ultimately granted leave to appeal on certain grounds but dismissed the appeal, indicating that the advocate's immunity did not preclude the applicant's claim based on misleading or deceptive conduct in this context. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. In relation to ground 1, ground 3, ground 6 (as it relates to the matters in grounds 1, 3 and 7) and ground 7 in the applicant's amended draft notice of appeal, refuse leave to appeal.
2. Direct that the applicant do within fourteen days file a notice of appeal in the form of his amended draft notice of appeal, excluding ground 1, ground 3, ground 6 (as it relates to the matters in grounds 1, 3 and 7) and ground 7.
3. In relation to ground 2, ground 4 and ground 6 (as it relates to the matters in grounds 2 and 4) as set out in the applicant's amended draft notice of appeal, grant leave to appeal and dismiss the appeal.
4. Order that the applicant pay the respondents' costs of the proceedings in this Court.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
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.