Wright v. Farrell & Ors [2006] ScotCS CSIH_7 (10 February 2006)

Wright v. Farrell & Ors [2006] ScotCS CSIH_7 (10 February 2006)

The court held that, in Scotland, solicitors conducting the defence of an accused in criminal proceedings enjoy immunity from suit for their conduct in court, justified by the public interest in the administration of criminal justice. Even if such immunity did not apply, the pursuer's pleadings were irrelevant because he did not aver that, but for the alleged negligence, he would not have been convicted. Proof of a miscarriage of justice alone is insufficient to establish causation and loss in a civil claim for damages for professional negligence.

Citation
[2006] ScotCS CSIH_7
Parties
Pursuer and Reclaimer: Trevor Rush McCafferty Wright; Defenders and Respondents: Paton Farrell and Robert Paton and Peter Farrell
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
10 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) in Civil Damages Action / Inner House, Court of Session (appeal From Lord Ordinary's Decision)
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused; action dismissed
Legal Topics
Solicitor's Immunity, Duty of Care, Damages for Negligent Defence, Public Policy in Legal Immunity, Causation in Professional Negligence, Human Rights (access to Court)
Professional Negligence Criminal Law Civil Procedure Solicitor's Immunity Duty of Care Damages for Negligent Defence Public Policy in Legal Immunity Causation in Professional Negligence +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trevor Rush McCafferty Wright

Pursuer and Reclaimer

Paton Farrell and Robert Paton and Peter Farrell

Defenders and Respondents

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) in Civil Damages Action / Inner House, Court of Session (appeal From Lord Ordinary's Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a solicitor conducting a criminal defence in person can be sued by his client for damages for negligent conduct of that defence
  2. 2 Whether immunity from suit applies to solicitors acting as advocates in criminal proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer's pleadings are relevant where he does not aver that, but for the negligence, he would have been acquitted

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, in Scotland, solicitors conducting the defence of an accused in criminal proceedings enjoy immunity from suit for their conduct in court, justified by the public interest in the administration of criminal justice. Even if such immunity did not apply, the pursuer's pleadings were irrelevant because he did not aver that, but for the alleged negligence, he would not have been convicted. Proof of a miscarriage of justice alone is insufficient to establish causation and loss in a civil claim for damages for professional negligence.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused; action dismissed

Orders

  • Lord Ordinary's interlocutor of 27 August recalled
  • Third plea-in-law for defenders and respondents sustained