Legal Research
Cases
Stanton v Tyler

Stanton v Tyler

Case [2015] NSWSC 797 19 June 2015

Appeal

Summary Judgment

Advocates’ Immunity from Suit

Jurisdiction

Locus Standi

Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Stanton v Tyler [2015] NSWSC 797
Hearing dates: 22 May 2015
Decision date: 19 June 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Hall J
Decision:
(1)   The Amended Notice of Motion filed on behalf of the First Defendant, Rosana Tyler, on 20 February 2015, is dismissed.

(2)   The Notice of Motion filed on behalf of the Second Defendant, Lucinda Wilson, on 27 February 2015, is dismissed.
(3)   I grant leave for the parties to make any application in respect of orders as to costs or other ancillary matters.
Catchwords:
PROCEDURE – Civil – Applications for summary dismissal of or alternatively an order striking out the Amended Statement of Claim pursuant to UCPR Rule 13.4 on the basis of advocates’ immunity from suit – First and second defendants were respectively a solicitor and barrister who had conduct of plaintiff’s proceedings in a cross-claim against an Owners Corporation in the Local Court and subsequent appeal to Supreme Court and Court of Appeal – Plaintiffs in Amended Statement of Claim alleged negligence by defendants, breach of fiduciary duty, misleading and deceptive conduct and other causes of action in relation to alleged negligent advice – Relevant advice was firstly advice to pursue cross-claim proceedings in the Local Court and secondly advice to pursue appeal to the Supreme Court – Local Court had dismissed cross-claim on the basis of an expiration of limitation period and on the plaintiffs’ lack of standing – Supreme Court appeal was also dismissed.
ADVOCATES’ IMMUNITY FROM SUIT – Defendants claimed no cause of action was sustainable because of the doctrine of advocate’s immunity – Relied on D’Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid [2005] HCA 12 – Plaintiffs relied on exception to doctrine where advice went to the issue of jurisdiction or locus standi to bring and pursue a cross-claim in circumstances where the alleged damage to property related to the common property on a strata plan not the plaintiff’s property – Held that whether the doctrine applied or not was a triable issue – There was a triable issue as to whether or not the legal advice was outside the scope of the doctrine because it went to the appropriate forum to commence proceedings in – The proceedings arguable did not constitute, directly or indirectly, a challenge to or traversing of the decision of the Local Court – Applications dismissed
Legislation Cited: Fair Trading Act 1987
Legal Profession Act 2004
Strata Schemes Management Act 1996
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)
Cases Cited: Attard v James Legal Pty Ltd [2010] NSWCA 311
D’Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid [2005] HCA 12; (2005) 223 CLR 1
Donellan v Watson (1990) 21 NSWLR 335
Donnellan v Woodland [2012] NSWCA 433
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) [1964] HCA 69; (1964) 112 CLR 125
Giannarelli v Wraith [1988] HCA 52; 165 CLR 543
Heydon v NRMA Ltd (2000) 51 NSWLR 1
Jackson Lalic Lawyers Pty Ltd v Attwells [2014] NSWCA 335
Keefe…

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 Stanton v Tyler

Details

AGLC: Stanton v Tyler [2015] NSWSC 797
Case: [2015] NSWSC 797
Decision Date: 19 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Stanton v Tyler involved a dispute between the plaintiffs, who were seeking damages for alleged professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, misleading and deceptive conduct, and other causes of action, and the defendants, who were a solicitor and a barrister who had handled the plaintiffs' legal proceedings in a cross-claim against an Owners Corporation and subsequent appeals. The defendants sought summary dismissal or an order striking out the Amended Statement of Claim on the basis of advocates’ immunity from suit. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had provided negligent advice in two instances: first, in advising the plaintiffs to pursue cross-claim proceedings in the Local Court, and second, in advising them to pursue an appeal to the Supreme Court. Both the Local Court and the Supreme Court had dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims on jurisdictional grounds.

The legal issues before the court were whether the defendants were immune from suit under the doctrine of advocates’ immunity and, if not, whether the advice provided by the defendants fell outside the scope of that immunity. The defendants argued that they were immune from suit under the doctrine established in D’Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid [2005] HCA 12, and that no cause of action could be sustained against them. The plaintiffs contended that the advice in question, particularly regarding the appropriate forum for commencing proceedings, fell outside the scope of the immunity because it pertained to jurisdictional issues. The court held that whether the doctrine applied or not was a triable issue and that there was a triable issue as to whether the legal advice was outside the scope of the doctrine because it went to the appropriate forum to commence proceedings.

The court dismissed the defendants' applications for summary dismissal and striking out, holding that the issue of advocates’ immunity was one that needed to be determined at trial. The court also noted that the proceedings did not constitute, directly or indirectly, a challenge to or traversing of the decisions of the Local Court. The court's decision left the matter open for further litigation, allowing the plaintiffs' claims to proceed to trial.

Orders