Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/370
Title: Advocates' Immunity: Finality reigns supreme
Contributor(s): Werren, JC  (author)orcid ; Williamson, AL  (author)
Publication Date: 2005
Open Access: Yes
Handle Link: https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/370
Abstract: The recent decision of D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victorian Legal Aid and Another came as a surprise to some, who expected that Australia would follow suit and abolish advocates' immunity as the House of Lords did in Arthur J S Hall & Co v Simons, and more recently, as the New Zealand Court of Appeal did in Chamberlains v Lai. However, the majority of the High Court, with only Kirby J dissenting, determined that the immunity was to remain in Australia. In the media, there was much criticism of this decision, with members of the public and the profession questioning the joint majority's rationale for retaining the immunity. Whilst the decision in D'Orta-Ekenaike raises several important issues, including the scope of the immunity post-Giannarelli v Wraith, as well as the difficulties of proving causation in lawyer negligence claims, this brief case note will concentrate upon the main justification for the retention of the immunity, that is, the 'finality' principle.
Publication Type: Journal Article
Source of Publication: University of New England Law Journal, 2(1), p. 103-108
Publisher: University of New England
Place of Publication: Australia
ISSN: 1449-2199
Fields of Research (FoR) 2008: 180126 Tort Law
HERDC Category Description: C2 Non-Refereed Article in a Scholarly Journal
Appears in Collections:Journal Article

Files in This Item:
5 files
File Description SizeFormat 
open/SOURCE02.pdfPublisher version (open access)48.22 kBAdobe PDF
Download Adobe
View/Open
Show full item record
Google Media

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in Research UNE are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.