Stanton v Tyler

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.