Golden v Koffel [2022] NSWCA 8

Golden v Koffel [2022] NSWCA 8

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant's allegations were directed to the respondents' conduct and preparation of the earlier litigation, including decisions about evidence, subpoenas, cross-examination and the case to be run. Those matters fell squarely within advocates' immunity and the proposed claim would require a collateral relitigation of the earlier proceedings, so there was no arguable error in the primary judge's summary dismissal and no arguable basis on which the proceeding could succeed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Summary Dismissal of Proceeding Against Former Solicitors / Summons for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Summons for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['summary Dismissal' "advocates' Immunity" 'no Reasonable Cause of Action' 'leave to Appeal']
['civil Procedure' 'professional Negligence' 'legal Practitioners'] ['summary Dismissal' "advocates' Immunity" 'no Reasonable Cause of Action' 'leave to Appeal']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Summary Dismissal of Proceeding Against Former Solicitors / Summons for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant had an arguable basis for leave to appeal from the summary dismissal of his proceeding against his former solicitors.' "Whether the claims against the respondents were barred by advocates' immunity because they concerned work done in court or work out of court leading to decisions affecting the conduct of the case in court." 'Whether the proceeding would require relitigation of issues determined in earlier proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant's allegations were directed to the respondents' conduct and preparation of the earlier litigation, including decisions about evidence, subpoenas, cross-examination and the case to be run. Those matters fell squarely within advocates' immunity and the proposed claim would require a collateral relitigation of the earlier proceedings, so there was no arguable error in the primary judge's summary dismissal and no arguable basis on which the proceeding could succeed.

Court Disposition

Summons for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Summons for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.']