Australia's anachronistic advocates' immunity: Lessons from comparative tort law

UTSePress Research/Manakin Repository

Search UTSePress Research


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Anthony, Thalia en_US
dc.contributor.editor en_US
dc.date.accessioned 2012-02-02T11:04:55Z
dc.date.available 2012-02-02T11:04:55Z
dc.date.issued 2007 en_US
dc.identifier 2009003503 en_US
dc.identifier.citation Anthony Thalia 2007, 'Australia's anachronistic advocates' immunity: Lessons from comparative tort law', Thomson Reuters, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 11-30. en_US
dc.identifier.issn 1039-3285 en_US
dc.identifier.other C1UNSUBMIT en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10453/15977
dc.description.abstract n recent years a judicial wave has washed away legal advocates' common law immunity in jurisdictions comparable with that of Australia. English and New Zealand courts abrogated immunity in 2000 and 2005-2006 respectively in order to create public confidence in the legal system. 3 In 2005, the Ontario Court of Appeal (Canada) established that advocates are liable for a reasonable standard of care, rather than "egregious error". 4 The superior courts of the United States have consistently maintained that counsel, including advocates appointed by the state since 1979, 5 have a duty of care to clients that is not protected by immunity. In 2005 the High Court of Australia anchored advocates' immunity contrary to the international tide. The decision arose from the case of D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid (2005)?223 CLR 1 [PDF] that involved an acquitted man who attempted to sue his barrister and solicitor for wrong advice that led to his earlier conviction and three years imprisonment. In a strong six-to-one majority, the High Court not only affirmed immunity of advocates from negligence suits, but also extended its scope from in-court to out-of-court immunity, and from barristers' immunity to instructing solicitors. The court's chief justification was to protect the public interest by ensuring the finality of trials. The majority (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ) held that abolishing immunity would precipitate parlous re-litigation and undermine the administration of justice (at [31]). en_US
dc.language en_US
dc.publisher Thomson Reuters en_US
dc.title Australia's anachronistic advocates' immunity: Lessons from comparative tort law en_US
dc.parent Tort Law Review en_US
dc.journal.volume 15 en_US
dc.journal.number 1 en_US
dc.publocation Australia en_US
dc.identifier.startpage 11 en_US
dc.identifier.endpage 30 en_US
dc.cauo.name LAW.Faculty of law en_US
dc.conference Verified OK en_US
dc.for 180100 en_US
dc.personcode 108953 en_US
dc.percentage 100 en_US
dc.classification.name Law en_US
dc.classification.type FOR-08 en_US
dc.edition en_US
dc.custom en_US
dc.date.activity en_US
dc.location.activity en_US
dc.description.keywords NA en_US
dc.staffid en_US
dc.staffid 108953 en_US


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record