Darrin Michael Gillies v William Brewer [2014] NSWSC 1198

Darrin Michael Gillies v William Brewer [2014] NSWSC 1198

The proceedings were dismissed because the Statement of Claim did not plead a legally recognisable wrongful act or compensable loss, the complaints sought to relitigate matters concerning the conduct of the plaintiff's criminal trial that had been examined and rejected by the Court of Criminal Appeal, any cause of action accrued no later than August 2006 and the Statement of Claim filed on 9 December 2013 was outside the six-year limitation period in s 14 of the Limitation Act 1969, and the alleged acts and omissions of the former barrister and solicitor occurred in court or were intimately connected with the conduct of the criminal trial and were therefore protected by advocates' immunity.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceedings by Former Client Against Former Barrister and Solicitor Concerning Legal Services in Criminal Proceedings / Defendants' Motions for Strike Out or Summary Dismissal Under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
Outcome
Proceedings dismissed against the first and second defendants.
Legal Topics
["advocates' Immunity" 'summary Dismissal' 'no Reasonable Cause of Action' 'abuse of Process' 'collateral Attack on Criminal Conviction' 'limitation Period']
['civil Procedure' 'limitation of Actions' 'legal Practitioners' 'professional Negligence'] ["advocates' Immunity" 'summary Dismissal' 'no Reasonable Cause of Action' 'abuse of Process' 'collateral Attack on Criminal Conviction' 'limitation Period']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Proceedings by Former Client Against Former Barrister and Solicitor Concerning Legal Services in Criminal Proceedings / Defendants' Motions for Strike Out or Summary Dismissal Under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Statement of Claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action against the first and second defendants.' "Whether the proceedings were an abuse of process because they sought to relitigate issues determined in the plaintiff's criminal appeal." 'Whether the proceedings were statute barred under s 14 of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW).' "Whether the first and second defendants were immune from suit by advocates' immunity for work done in court or intimately connected with the conduct of the criminal trial."]

Ratio Decidendi

The proceedings were dismissed because the Statement of Claim did not plead a legally recognisable wrongful act or compensable loss, the complaints sought to relitigate matters concerning the conduct of the plaintiff's criminal trial that had been examined and rejected by the Court of Criminal Appeal, any cause of action accrued no later than August 2006 and the Statement of Claim filed on 9 December 2013 was outside the six-year limitation period in s 14 of the Limitation Act 1969, and the alleged acts and omissions of the former barrister and solicitor occurred in court or were intimately connected with the conduct of the criminal trial and were therefore protected by advocates' immunity.

Court Disposition

Proceedings dismissed against the first and second defendants.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to r 13.4 of the UCPR, the proceedings be dismissed against the first and second defendants on the basis that no reasonable cause of action is disclosed, by virtue of the operation of s 14 of the Limitation Act the proceeding is not maintainable, and to the extent not otherwise covered the first and...