Bianca Kabel represented the first and second defendants, instructed by Carter Newell.
The plaintiff was the registered owner of a property over which the defendant lodged a caveat. Following two unsuccessful applications to remove the caveat, the plaintiff brought proceedings against multiple legal practitioners and corporate legal practices that represented the defendant either in lodging the caveat or in the main litigation, contending their actions were inconsistent with legal requirements and ethical standards.
The Court found that the causes of action were fundamentally misconceived, requiring striking out. The defendants did not owe a tortious duty of care or a fiduciary duty to the plaintiff in adversarial litigation, and advocate’s immunity shielded the defendants’ conduct from civil action. Further, the ethical duties under the Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2023 (Qld) did not create a freestanding civil cause of action, and the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld) did not prove a basis for a statutory cause of action in relation to the caveat.
The judgment can be read by clicking here
