Rees v Sinclair

JurisdictionNew Zealand
Judgment Date1974
Year1974
Date1974
CourtHigh Court
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
74 cases
  • Saif Ali v Sydney Mitchell & Company
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 2 November 1978
    ...of justice, and that is why I would not be prepared to include anything which does not come within the test I have stated." ( Rees v. Sinclair [1974] 1 NZLR 180, 187). 17I do not understand this formulation as suggesting an entirely new test, i.e. a double test requiring (a) intimate conne......
  • Yates Property Corporation (in Liquidation) v Boland
    • Australia
    • Federal Court
    • Invalid date
  • Acton v Graham Pearce & Company (A Firm)
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • Invalid date
  • Attorney-General v Chapman Sc
    • New Zealand
    • Supreme Court
    • 16 September 2011
    ...formulation of the test for inclusion of a case in any of the categories being Sir Thaddeus McCarthy P's proposition in Rees v Sinclair [1974] 1 NZLR 180, 187, “The protection should not be given any wider application than is absolutely necessary in the interests of the administration of ju......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Advocate's Immunity from Suit: Goddard Elliott (a firm) v Fritsch [2012] VSC 87
    • Australia
    • Mondaq Australia
    • 12 August 2012
    ...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......
2 books & journal articles
  • Should advocates' immunity continue?
    • Australia
    • Melbourne University Law Review Vol. 28 No. 1, April - April 2004
    • 1 April 2004
    ...to that of the advocate ought to receive the benefit of the immunity. In our view, this reasoning is forceful. (55) Rees v Sinclair [1974] 1 NZLR 180, 187 (McCarthy P), cited in Giannarelli (1988) 165 CLR 543, 560 (Mason (56) (1988) 165 CLR 543, 559-60. Wilson and Brennan JJ also adopted th......
  • ADVOCATES' IMMUNITY FROM NEGLIGENCE ACTION
    • United Kingdom
    • Emerald Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance No. 1-2, February 1992
    • 1 February 1992
    ...Ltd [1964] AC 465. 3 Rondel v Worsley [1969] 1 AC 191. 4 Saif Ali v Sydney Mitchell & Co [1978] 3 All ER 1033. 5 Rees v Sinclair [1974] 1 NZLR 180. 6 Saif Ali, at p. 1039a. 7 Royal Commission on Legal Services, Cmnd 7648 (1979). 8 HC debate on Courts and Legal Ser-vices Bill (18th April, 19......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT