Young v Hones [2014] NSWCA 337

Young v Hones [2014] NSWCA 337

Advocate's immunity and witness immunity are complete answers to Ms Young's claims for negligence and misleading/deceptive conduct against the lawyer and engineer respondents respectively, as the conduct alleged was intimately connected with the conduct and settlement of court proceedings. The determination of separate questions regarding immunity prior to the close of pleadings was not erroneous, as the parties had consented and the relevant claims were clearly pleaded. The immunities extend to statutory causes of action absent express legislative abrogation and are not displaced merely by allegations based on bad faith unless properly pleaded in the statement of claim.

Parties
Appellant: Margo Young; First Respondent: Brian Keith Hones; Second Respondent: Jason Hones; Third Respondent: Ian Hemmings; Fourth Respondent: Hughes Trueman Pty Ltd; Fifth Respondent: Stephen John Perrens
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Post Final Determination – Appeal From Summary Dismissal, Principal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Advocate's Immunity, Witness Immunity, Negligence, Misleading and Deceptive Conduct, Pleadings, Summary Dismissal
Civil Procedure Torts Advocate's Immunity Witness Immunity Negligence Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Pleadings Summary Dismissal

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 4 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Margo Young

Appellant

Brian Keith Hones

First Respondent

Jason Hones

Second Respondent

Ian Hemmings

Third Respondent

Hughes Trueman Pty Ltd

Fourth Respondent

Stephen John Perrens

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Post Final Determination – Appeal From Summary Dismissal, Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether advocate's immunity and witness immunity are complete defences to claims of negligence and misleading/deceptive conduct against lawyer and engineer respondents
  2. 2 Whether summary determination of separate questions prior to close of pleadings was appropriate
  3. 3 Whether advocate's immunity applies to statutory causes of action

Ratio Decidendi

Advocate's immunity and witness immunity are complete answers to Ms Young's claims for negligence and misleading/deceptive conduct against the lawyer and engineer respondents respectively, as the conduct alleged was intimately connected with the conduct and settlement of court proceedings. The determination of separate questions regarding immunity prior to the close of pleadings was not erroneous, as the parties had consented and the relevant claims were clearly pleaded. The immunities extend to statutory causes of action absent express legislative abrogation and are not displaced merely by allegations based on bad faith unless properly pleaded in the statement of claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs