Legal Research
Cases
Sgargetta v Hayes

Sgargetta v Hayes

Case [2016] VSC 150 13 April 2016

Summary Judgment

Standing

Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic)

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION
PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY LIST

S CI 2016 00062

ELLIOT DANIEL SGARGETTA	Plaintiff
v
PAUL HAYES & JOEL SILVER	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	MACAULAY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	4 April 2016
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	13 April 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Sgargetta v Hayes
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 150 First revision (12 May 2016)

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Summary judgment application — Advocates’ immunity — No real prospect of success — Merits of the case — Granted — Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) ss 62, 63 and 64.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Plaintiff appeared in person
For the Defendants	Ms A J Golding	DLA Piper Australia

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction and summary............................................................................................................... 1

Background......................................................................................................................................... 2

Mr Sgargetta’s dispute with the NAB........................................................................................ 2
Decision of Judge Cosgrave........................................................................................................ 4
Court of Appeal hearing and decision...................................................................................... 5
Steps taken after the Court of Appeal’s decision..................................................................... 9

Principles for summary judgment................................................................................................ 13

Advocates’ Immunity....................................................................................................................... 13

Anshun estoppel.............................................................................................................................. 18

Abuse of process............................................................................................................................... 21

Merits.................................................................................................................................................. 23

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 25

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction and summary

Elliot Sgargetta, an indefatigable litigant, feels aggrieved that two barristers appearing for him pro bono in the Victorian Court of Appeal failed to argue a point that he believes would have won his case. Instead, he lost. The question for me is whether the claim he has brought against those barristers has got any real prospect of succeeding or should be dismissed now without going to trial. In my view it should be dismissed now.

Paul Hayes and Joel Silver (the defendants) represented Mr Sgargetta (the plaintiff) in the Court of Appeal on 27 May 2014 on an appeal by Mr Sgargetta against a decision of a County Court judge. The trial judge had granted the National Australia Bank possession of Mr Sgargetta’s property and ordered him to pay $440,441.19 plus interest due under a mortgage.[1] Mr Sgargetta failed on his appeal.[2] His application for special leave to appeal to the High Court was dismissed.[3]
[1]National Australia Bank Limited v Sgargetta [2014] VCC 48.
[2]Sgargetta v National Australia Bank Limited [2014] VSCA 159 (‘Court of Appeal Reasons’).
[3]Sgargetta v National Australia Bank Ltd [2014] HCASL 234.

By this proceeding he sues his barristers alleging, in substance, that in breach of various duties they wrongfully abandoned an argument they were instructed to put to the Court of Appeal or, at least, they failed to correct a misapprehension by the Court that they had done so. A similar claim made against them at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘VCAT’) was summarily dismissed.[4]
[4]Sgargetta v Hayes (Legal Practice) [2015] VCAT 1490 (‘the VCAT proceeding’).

Mr Hayes and Mr Silver have applied for summary judgment against Mr Sgargetta relying upon ss 62 and 63 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) (‘Civil Procedure Act’) and r 23.01(1) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) (‘Supreme…

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 Sgargetta v Hayes

Details

AGLC: Sgargetta v Hayes [2016] VSC 150
Case: [2016] VSC 150
Decision Date: 13 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sgargetta v Hayes was a case heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, which involved a summary judgment application brought by the plaintiff, Sgargetta, against the defendant, Hayes. The dispute centred around the immunity of advocates from liability for defamation. Sgargetta, a former client, alleged that Hayes, his lawyer, had defamed him by making false statements during a mediation process. Hayes applied for summary judgment, arguing that he was immune from such defamation claims under the advocates’ immunity doctrine.

The legal issues before the court included whether Hayes' conduct was protected by advocates’ immunity and whether there was a real prospect that Sgargetta could succeed on the merits of the case. The court examined the scope of advocates’ immunity, particularly whether it extended to defamatory statements made during mediation. It also considered whether the statements in question were within the scope of the advocate's duties and whether they were made in good faith.

The court found that Hayes' conduct was indeed protected by advocates’ immunity, as it fell within the scope of his duties as an advocate and was made in the course of a dispute resolution process. The court also concluded that there was no real prospect that Sgargetta could succeed on the merits of the case, as the statements made by Hayes were likely to be considered fair and honest, and necessary for the mediation process. Accordingly, the court granted Hayes' application for summary judgment under sections 62, 63, and 64 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic).

Orders