Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Refusal to strike out defence in professional negligence case amid ongoing factual disputes
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
The High Court refused an application by the plaintiff to strike out the defence to his claim for professional negligence against his former solicitors. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's handling of his original employment-related claims was negligent and that the defence disclosed no reasonable ground. However, the court found that the burden of proof remains on the plaintiff, and the striking out jurisdiction is to be exercised only sparingly. The court concluded that factual disputes between the parties, including whether the original claims had merit and the appropriateness of the settlement advice, must be determined at trial. The plaintiff’s subjective belief in the merits of his case was not sufficient grounds to strike out the defence, and costs of the application were awarded to the defendant.
professional negligence – application to strike out defence – abuse of process – burden of proof – employment claims – Workplace Relations Commission – Protected Disclosures Act – settlement agreement – damages – legal costs – Rules of the Superior Courts – Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 – pleadings – interlocutory application – reference letter
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
