Stillman v Rusbourne

Stillman v Rusbourne concerned an application for leave to appeal a decision of the primary judge. The applicant, Stillman, alleged negligence against the respondent, Rusbourne, who had acted as Stillman's legal representative. The dispute arose from advice provided by Rusbourne to Stillman to settle the underlying litigation following a court-ordered mediation. A judgment was subsequently entered into the court record pursuant to this settlement.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the advice given by Rusbourne to settle the case, which led to a judgment being entered, fell within the scope of advocates' immunity from suit for negligence. Specifically, the court had to determine if there was a sufficient connection between the advice provided and the conduct of the case in court to attract this immunity.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that advocates' immunity extends to advice that affects the conduct of a case in court. In this instance, the advice to settle directly resulted in a judgment being entered, thereby concluding the litigation. The court found that this advice had a sufficient connection to the conduct of the case in court, as it determined the ultimate outcome and prevented further proceedings. Consequently, the court held that Rusbourne was immune from a claim of negligence in relation to this advice.

Leave to appeal was refused, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.