Articles dealing with recent changes to law

mountainyman

Anyone know of any articles on recent changes to the law?

Especially:
The defamation act 2006
Karen Millen case
Barristers Liability


In order that I might bring something to the party there is a good article on Beatty and Rent tirbunal online as a PDF

Tom Young

mountainyman wrote: »

Anyone know of any articles on recent changes to the law?

Especially:
The defamation act 2006
Karen Millen case
Barristers Liability


In order that I might bring something to the party there is a good article on Beatty and Rent tirbunal online as a PDF

- Defamation Act: See www.cearta.ie and www.lexferenda.com Neville Cox and Eoin Carolan have written about it also.

- Karen Millen case, see McGarrs.

- Barristers Liability, see Bar Review Article by Ray and Des Ryan in Volume 1, Issue 6. 2005.

The following three cases: Moy v Pettman Smith & Perry, D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid & Lai v Chamberlains appeared last year on the Tort entrance exam in respect of Barristers immunity. As you can see there are jurisdiction issues with regard to the enforcement of the matter in tort. The House of Lords did abolish full immunity in Hall v. Simons, as below http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldjudgmt/jd000720/hall-1.htm.

Other cases of note include Saif Ali v. Sydney Mitchell and Rondell v. Worsley

Australia: Retained by court.
NZ: Removed by court, subject to legislative review.
UK: Removed by court
Ireland: Unclear, refer to recent media Patrick Russell case, before Peter Kelly, J.

http://www.lawyers.org.nz/lawtalk/642Lai.htm

Moy v Pettman Smith & Perry examines the extent of advocates’ liability in professional negligence, following the abolition of immunity from suit. It is a helpful judgment for professionals and their insurers. Not only does it reconfirm the test be applied in negligence allegations against counsel, but also it makes it clear that an exhaustive list of the reasons behind the advice given is not required – certainly the absence of such a list will not establish negligence if the advice was otherwise within the range that might have been expected.

Negligence at door of court
An advocate had no duty to explain the thinking behind her advice to her client when advising him whether or not to accept a settlement offer at the door of the court. The concept of informed consent which requires a doctor to explain a particular risk to a patient does not apply to advocates (Moy v Pettman Smith HL 3 February 2005).

Westlaw:

The clearest statement on barristers' and solicitors' immunity by the High Court can be found in its 1988 judgment in Giannarelli v Wraith [1] where it stated that:
0. at common law, barristers and solicitors are immune from liability for negligence in the conduct of court work or work out of court that leads to a decision affecting the conduct of a case in court (advocates' immunity);
0.
0. and the Legal Profession Practice Act 1958 (Vic) (the 1958 Act) also provided for advocates' immunity.
Earlier this month, in D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid [2], the High Court (by a majority of 6-1)[3] confirmed that barristers and solicitors still enjoy the benefit of advocates' immunity. In response, state and territory governments are considering whether to wind back the scope of the immunity or to abolish it completely.

http://www.lawyers.org.nz/lawtalk/642Lai.htm

Barristers' immunity abolished
In a 4:1 majority decision, the Court of Appeal has said barristers should no longer be immune from being able to be sued for damages over the way they have conducted a civil case. The court has, however, left open the question of barristerial immunity in a criminal context to be argued at an appropriate time.
A full bench heard the case of Lai v Chamberlains on 1 March 2004 and released its decision on 8 March this year. Four (McGrath, Glazebrook, Hammond and O’Regan JJ) found in favour of abolishing the immunity while the President, Justice Anderson, gave a dissenting judgment favouring retention.
Although not parties to the case, the NZLS and New Zealand Bar Association were granted permission to intervene in the proceeding and made submissions as to why immunity should be retained.
The case arose when the plaintiffs sued an Auckland law firm for negligence over the conduct of a case. The law firm pleaded the defence of immunity, relying on Rees v Sinclair ([1974] 1 NZLR 180 (CA)) as being the established law in New Zealand. The plaintiffs were unsuccessful in seeking to have that defence struck out. A full court of the High Court (Salmon and Laurenson JJ) held it had to apply the Court of Appeal’s Rees v Sinclair decision ([2003] 2 NZLR 374).
Now the Court of Appeal has overturned Rees v Sinclair, a case that had relied on the English position at the time. However, that position changed in 2000 when a seven-member bench of the House of Lords unanimously abolished immunity via the case of Arthur J Hall & Co v Simons ([2002] AC 615).

Tom Young

PS: The position in Ireland is somewhat different.