Golden v Koffel [2021] NSWSC 739

Golden v Koffel [2021] NSWSC 739

The plaintiff's allegations against the defendants concerned the conduct of the earlier hearing and preparatory work affecting that conduct, including what evidence should have been obtained or adduced and what cross-examination should have occurred. Those matters fell squarely within advocates' immunity, so the professional negligence claim was bound to fail and disclosed no reasonable cause of action under UCPR r 13.4.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence Proceedings Against Former Solicitors / Defendants' Notice of Motion for Dismissal Under UCPR R 13.4 or Strike Out Under UCPR R 14.28
Outcome
Proceedings dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['summary Dismissal' 'strike Out' 'no Reasonable Cause of Action' "advocates' Immunity" "solicitors' Conduct of Litigation"]
['civil Procedure' 'professional Negligence'] ['summary Dismissal' 'strike Out' 'no Reasonable Cause of Action' "advocates' Immunity" "solicitors' Conduct of Litigation"]

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

Professional Negligence Proceedings Against Former Solicitors / Defendants' Notice of Motion for Dismissal Under UCPR R 13.4 or Strike Out Under UCPR R 14.28

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff's professional negligence claim against his former solicitors disclosed a reasonable cause of action in light of advocates' immunity." 'Whether the amended statement of claim should be struck out as improperly pleaded, embarrassing, an abuse of process, or disclosing no cause of action.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's allegations against the defendants concerned the conduct of the earlier hearing and preparatory work affecting that conduct, including what evidence should have been obtained or adduced and what cross-examination should have occurred. Those matters fell squarely within advocates' immunity, so the professional negligence claim was bound to fail and disclosed no reasonable cause of action under UCPR r 13.4.

Court Disposition

Proceedings dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The proceedings are dismissed.' "The plaintiff is to pay the defendants' costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the motion."]