Deepa V Goodman Law. In The Case Of Deepa V Goodman Law

1001 WordsApr 20, 20175 Pages
Deepa v Goodman Law In the case of Deepa v Goodman Law was the advice given to Deepa during her trial against big public hospital, when they falsely told her to give evidence, including information about an affair 12 years ago leading to the discontinuation of the trial subject to advocates immunity? Since the advice given to Deepa by Goodman law was misleading, Deepa could sue for negligence and damages, the trial caused Deepa losses and damages which would not have been incurred if Goodman law advised Deepa that she did not have to give evidence regarding the affair. However, Goodman law could claim back on advocates immunity according to Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, Part 2 Section 62 And The Trade Practices Act 1974, 95ZO…show more content…
In Deepa v Goodman Law, if Deepa was advised she would not have to give evidence regarding her affair, the trial could have been more favourable to her. The results of kendirjian v lepore was that immunity from suit did not extend to negligent advice which leads to a compromise of litigation by agreement between the parties. As the majority joint judgment explained, by the same reasoning it is difficult to envisage how the immunity could ever extend to advice not to settle a case. In the case of Giannarelli v Wraith, a majority of this Court upheld the common law immunity from suit of an advocate. The boundaries of immunity were described in the following terms "Preparation of a case out of court cannot be divorced from presentation in court. The two are inextricably interwoven so that the immunity must extend to work done out of court which leads to a decision affecting the conduct of the case in court”. But to take the immunity any further would entail a risk of taking the protection beyond the boundaries of the public policy considerations which sustain the immunity. I would agree with McCarthy P in Rees v Sinclair where it was said by his honour: '... the protection exists only where the particular work is so intimately connected with the conduct of the cause in Court that it can fairly be said to be a preliminary decision affecting the way that cause is to be conducted when it comes to a hearing. '"
Open Document