Van Eckeren v Legal Services Commission of South Australia & Anor

[2007] HCATrans 292

[2007] HCATrans 292

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Adelaide  No A22 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

MARGARET VAN ECKEREN

Applicant

and

LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSION OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

First Respondent

KATHERINE O’NEILL

Second Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 14 JUNE 2007, AT 9.38 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J:   The applicant instituted a number of actions in 1986 and 1987 concerning alleged personal injury and medical negligence.  In 1990, the applicant applied to the respondent Commission for legal assistance regarding those actions.  A limited grant was made on 25 February 1991, but that grant was terminated by the Director of the Commission on 21 February 1992 after a series of differences and disputes between the applicant on the one hand and the assigned solicitors, counsel and the Commission on the other.

In January 2001 the applicant commenced proceedings in the District Court of South Australia against the Commission, alleging that the termination of legal assistance was wrongful and that an employee of the Commission had defamed her. On 18 August 2005, both actions were dismissed by Kelly DCJ. Her Honour found that the respondent did not owe any duty of care to the applicant, nor did it owe or breach any statutory duty:  each such duty was inconsistent with the terms of the Legal Services Commission Act 1977 (SA). Her Honour also found that there was no evidence that the second respondent was the source of any defamatory statement.

An appeal to the Full Court of the Supreme Court was correctly dismissed on 11 September 2006 by Doyle CJ, Sulan and Vanstone JJ.  The comprehensive reasons of the Full Court were delivered by Doyle CJ.

The application for special leave to this Court does not advance any question of law that would justify the intervention of this Court.  Many of the proposed grounds of appeal concern factual matters rather than errors of law.  There are no prospects of success on any appeal to this Court.  Special leave is refused with costs.

Pursuant to r 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave.

I publish the disposition signed by Justice Heydon and myself.

AT 9.40 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED