Australia: Advocate's Immunity from Suit: Goddard Elliott (a firm) v Fritsch [2012] VSC 87

Australia is the only common law country which recognises an advocates' immunity against claims in negligence arising from their conduct of a case in court, or in work out of court intimately connected with that conduct. However, a recent single judge decision in the Supreme Court of Victoria highlights the unease with which the judiciary are applying what is the binding precedent of the High Court.

Key Points

The existence in Australia of the advocates' immunity is settled at common law, but the scope of the immunity has raised concern within the judiciary and amongst litigators.


In its 1988 decision of Giannarelli v Wraith1 the High Court of Australia recognised and applied a principle adopted by the House of Lords in 1969 in Rondel v Worsley2 to hold that at common law an advocate cannot be sued by his or her client for negligence in the conduct of a case in court, or in work out of court which is intimately connected with the conduct of a case in court. The immunity arose from public policy considerations, the determinative justification for the High Court being the adverse consequences for the administration of justice from re-litigating issues determined in concluded proceedings3. It is not confined to barristers, but applies at common law to solicitors and to work done out of court which leads to a decision affecting the conduct of the case in court.

The existence of the immunity was reaffirmed by the High Court in D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid4, despite an earlier decision of the House of Lords revoking it in England5. By this decision, Australia became the only common law country in which the immunity remains6.

The High Court's reasoning in D'Orta-Ekenaike was that for a client to demonstrate negligence on the part of an advocate in the conduct of litigation, re-litigation of the concluded issues would be an inevitable step. However, it was essential to the public confidence in the finality of proceedings that litigation should not be re-opened except in a few narrowly defined circumstances: "the finality principle". The High Court stressed that the immunity does not attach to an advocate by reason of some special status accorded to them above other professionals, but rather by reason of their participation in court proceedings, for which other participants (judges, witnesses, jurors, etc) hold immunity. Therefore, it is not the pressure of the courtroom which affords the advocate the immunity, since for example a surgeon is under the same kind of strain whilst operating and no immunity from suit attaches to any negligence in the operating theatre7.

As the test for the immunity as given in Giannarelli was thus reaffirmed, its application became the question for subsequent tribunals, and in particular the degree to which the out of court work has an "intimate connection" with in-court work. By his judgment in D'Orta-Ekenaike, McHugh J said8 that "the immunity should extend to any work, which, if the subject of a claim of negligence, would require the impugning of a final decision of a court or the relitigation of matters already finally determined by a court." McHugh J also gave examples of the types of work determined to be "intimately connected" to the relevant extent, and therefore protected, were9:

  • Failing to plead or claim interest in an action for damages;
  • Issuing a notice to admit and making admissions;
  • Failing to plead a statutory prohibition on the admissibility of crucial evidence;
  • Negligently advising a settlement;
  • Giving advice and making decision about what witnesses to call and not to call;
  • Giving consideration to the adequacy of the pleadings and, if appropriate, causing any necessary steps to be undertaken to have the pleadings amended.

Although the scope of the immunity as stated by McHugh J appears wide, the immunity is not unlimited. In proceedings in which the immunity was argued as a full defence to a claim for negligence, it was not extended include a failure to advise the availability of possible actions against third parties; a failure to advise commencing proceedings in a particular jurisdiction; applying for an injunction at short notice on the client's instruction but without cause; and advice by counsel on the prospects of the case or of an appeal10.

Nevertheless, a difficulty that has arisen for judges in lower courts bound by the High Court's decisions is an identified "lack of fit between the rationale for the immunity (the finality principle) and the formula specifying its scope"11. The degree of connection of the conduct complained about with the in-court work will be a matter on which legal minds can differ, and this has caused some to regard the law in this area as "not entirely satisfactory" and "vexed"12. This has been so in circumstances where it was considered that there need not be a challenge to the finality of a judicial decision at all, such as where a plaintiff seeks to recover costs alleged to have been wasted by reason of decisions made by their legal representatives during a proceeding13.

A particular example is the settlement of proceedings. Advice or other work leading to a settlement after a trial has commenced but before judgement has been given would attract the immunity as sufficiently connected with the conduct of the litigation14. On the other hand, advice given as to likely quantum for settlement did not attract the immunity for counsel in Hodgins v Cantrill15. A settlement at the door of the court attracted the immunity in Kelley v Corston 16 on the basis that such conduct involved predicting the likely outcome of a case at the door of the court and settling before it has begun, and therefore had the requisite degree of intimate connection with the case's conduct in court.

Goddard Elliott (a firm) v Fritsch

This matter concerned a property settlement proceeding in the Family Court. At the time of accepting instructions from Mr Fritsch, the law firm was aware that the case involved complex commercial and taxation issues and that he was mentally ill. However, despite nearly two years of preparation, the law firm was not ready to proceed at the commencement of the trial, and the hearing was adjourned for three days. On the return date, the proceeding was settled at the door of the court on terms that were overly generous to the wife. Consent orders to effect the settlement were made by the presiding judge, having heard the parties' respective barristers as to the terms, on the basis the settlement was just and equitable.

In proceedings commenced against the firm, the barristers and his accountant, Mr Fritsch alleged negligence on the basis that they took and acted on instructions which the man did not have the mental capacity to give, and also in relation to the firm's failure to properly prepare for the trial. The barristers and accountant settled the claim with Mr Fritsch in the course of the claim.

By his considered judgment in the claim against the firm17, Justice Bell of the Supreme Court of Victoria agreed that Mr Fritsch did not have the mental capacity to give instructions and that his legal representatives had been negligent, causing significant loss. However, the firm argued for the application of the advocates' immunity, and, although finding its application to be "deeply troubling" 18 , Bell J held that it provided the firm with a complete defence to Mr Fritsch's claim for damages.

Bell J held that the negligence with respect to Mr Fritsch's capacity as well as the preparation negligence fell within the immunity because it occurred in the course of work leading to decisions about, or intimately connected with, the conduct of a case in court, which His Honour described as a "very wide test" 19. The judge was in part persuaded by the fact that there had been an order made by the Family Court, having determined that the proposed orders were "just and equitable", and that there was thereby a consideration by the judge in the merits of the orders such that they represent a final determination of the proceeding.


Shortly after the judgment delivered in Goddard Elliott, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered advocates' immunity, but making no reference to that earlier decision. In Bott v Carter 20 , the Court of Appeal applied the immunity by considering whether the plaintiff's claims sought to impugn the correctness of the judgment. Although in that case a judgment had been made (that the client's employer was not liable for any amount of compensation to him), it was acknowledged that conduct by the client's solicitor leading up to the judgment might fall outside the scope of the immunity, such as failing to respond to the possibility of an offer of settlement, as that involved no challenge directly or indirectly to the ultimate judgment.

It was foreshadowed after the High Court delivered its judgment in D'Orta-Ekenaike that Australian courts would be unlikely to adopt a restrictive approach in applying the immunity to out of court work21, and the decision in Goddard Elliott shows that prediction well-founded. However, there is clearly some judicial unease associated with the immunity, which might be quelled only with further High Court guidance.


1 (1988) 165 CLR 543
2 [1969] 1 AC 191
3 Giannarelli per Mason J at 555
4 (2005) 223 CLR 1
5 Arthur JS Hall & Co v Simons [2002] 1 AC 615
6 The New Zealand Court of Appeal followed the House of Lords in approving the immunity in Rees v Sinclair [1974] 1 NZLR 180 and then revoking it in Lai v Chamberlain [2005] 3 NZLR 291
7 D'Orta-Ekenaike, per McHugh J at [188]
8 At [168]
9 As listed by McHugh J in D'Orta-Ekenaike at [154] & [155]
10 Dal Pont, G E: Lawyers' Professional Responsibility, 4th ed, Thomson Reuters at [5.284]
11 Cane, P: The new face of advocates' immunity; (2005) 13 Torts LJ 93 at 100
12 Giles JA at [31] and Tobias JA at [188] in Attard v James Legal Pty Ltd [2010] NSWCA 311
13 Attard v James Legal Pty Ltd [2010] NSWCA 311 at [15] to [31]
14 Biggar v McLeod [1978] NZLR 9
15 (1997) 26 MVR 481
16 [1998] 3 WLR 246
17 321 pages delivered on 14 March 2012
18 [2012] VSC 87 at [1145]
19 At [1145]
20 [2012] NSWCA 89 (judgment delivered 17 April 2012
21 Dal Pont at [5.290]

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.