- within Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
- with readers working within the Law Firm industries
The Victorian Court of Appeal, in Magriplis-Hampton v MM LP Holding Pty Ltd [2025] VSCA 274, has reaffirmed the breadth of the advocate's immunity defence and clarified its application to interlocutory rulings, including serious injury gateway determinations under the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (Vic) (WIRC Act).
Advocate's immunity is an immunity from suit, enabling legal practitioners to defend (and seek to strike out) negligence claims arising from work performed in the conduct of litigation, including tasks outside the courtroom that are intimately connected with the case.
In Magriplis-Hampton, the Court reaffirmed that advocate's immunity serves a critical policy objective: ensuring the finality of judicial decisions and avoiding the reopening of matters already adjudicated.
Underlying proceedings
In 2014, Tavis Magriplis-Hampton (applicant) sustained a significant back injury whilst employed as an apprentice electrician and subsequently engaged solicitors to advise on potential compensation entitlements. Acting on his behalf, the solicitors applied to the Victorian WorkCover Authority (VWA) for a serious injury certificate covering both pain and suffering and loss of earning capacity.
In September 2020, the VWA offered to issue a certificate limited to pain and suffering, on condition that the applicant abandon his claim for economic loss. The applicant rejected this offer. The solicitors then filed an application in the County Court seeking leave to pursue both heads of damages, including pain and suffering and economic loss arising from diminished earning capacity.
In June 2021, the County Court granted leave to pursue pain and suffering damages, but refused leave for economic loss, finding the applicant had not met the statutory threshold of 40% or greater loss of earning capacity. The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal the County Court decision.
Claim against solicitors
The applicant subsequently commenced professional negligence proceedings against the solicitors, alleging that they had failed to obtain evidence capable of establishing the requisite loss of earning capacity, thereby depriving him of the opportunity to recover economic loss damages.
In response, the solicitors sought summary judgment, contending that advocate's immunity provided a complete defence because the alleged omissions were intimately connected with the conduct of the underlying County Court proceeding and its determination. Associate Judge Daly accepted this argument and entered summary judgment in favour of the solicitors.
The applicant sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, arguing that his position had merit.
Appeal
The applicant contended that advocate's immunity should not extend to serious injury applications, characterising them as interlocutory and not determinative of the substantive damages claim against the employer.
The Supreme Court rejected this argument and leave, and dismissed the appeal, on the basis that the argument lacked substance.
The Court reaffirmed that advocate's immunity applies to work performed in Court, or work intimately connected with work in Court, provided that such work culminates in a judicial determination affecting the outcome. The relevant test is whether judicial power has been exercised to quell a controversy, rather than whether the order is interlocutory or final.
Serious injury applications are not merely procedural; they involve contested evidence, submissions, and binding consequences. The Court rejected the applicant's attempt to carve out an exception based on the "gateway" nature of the proceeding.
The Court held that the determination under section 335(2)(d) of the WIRC Act resolved whether the applicant could pursue economic loss damages and therefore attracted advocate's immunity. The subsequent negligence claims against the solicitors effectively challenged the correctness of the County Court's decision. Its premise (that better preparation would have produced a different outcome), would require re-litigation of issues already decided, undermining the principle of finality.
Key takeaways
The decision is relevant as it reinforces that the scope of advocate's immunity is broad yet firmly grounded in principle.
Scope of immunity: Broad but principled
High Court authorityi establishes that advocate's immunity is framed broadly and grounded in public policy rather than the nature of the decision. Its purpose is to protect the integrity and finality of judicial outcomes (not to shield lawyers personally).
Doctrine extends to interlocutory decisions
Immunity may apply even where the proceeding is a statutory gateway application or similar. The test is not whether the order is interlocutory or final, but whether judicial power was exercised to quell a controversy.
Public policy underpins the doctrine
Advocate's immunity exists to prevent re-litigation, uphold the finality of judicial determinations, and maintain confidence in the administration of justice. Attempts to create exceptions based on the type of decision will not succeed.
Footnotes
i See Giannarelli v Wraith (1988) 165 CLR 543; D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid (2005) 223 CLR 1; and Attwells v Jackson Lalic Lawyers Pty Ltd (2016) 259 CLR 1.
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.
