Giannarelli v Wraith
The case of Giannarelli v Wraith raises many questions concerning duty of care to clients and the immunity of certain members of the legal society to negligence within the court and within circumstances directly related to their performance in court. In this example the counsel had been accused of negligence in his handling of relevant information during and proceeding the hearing and the plaintiff claimed that had it not been for this negligence the outcome of the trial would have been different. Most prominently, the legal issues involved in the case are that of immunity of legal practitioners from certain rules of negligence as well as the authority of the law. Lesser issues of concern include the cab rank theory and efficiency of the administration of Justice.
Limited immunity is something which is extended to not only people practicing in a legal court but also to those in parliament for the purpose of ensuring confidence to act upon individual judgement rather than being in fear of litigation.
In a counsels case it is seen to be imperative that he/she has the ability to make educated and rational decisions regarding inclusions and omissions to the proceedings. Without such the counsel fails in their duty to the court as an instrument of justice as well as creating an inefficient system where all information, relevant or not, would be included out of fear of litigation. Furthermore, without a certain degree of immunity to negligence a counsel may be inclined to be more particular about which cases are pursued hence limiting the availability of the law to the general public. It is the immunity that protects a counsel's ability to perform their duty to their client and to the court without such fears and therefore such immunity should be protected in...