Search
This area does not yet contain any content.
Justinian News

Fresh upsets ... Hunt & Hunt writes to a judge ... Unwarranted correspondence slapped down ... Failure to reply to email from judge's chambers ... Impertinence ... ART Deputy President birched ... Failure to understand the law of legal professional privilege ... Ginger Snatch reports ... Read more >>

 

Politics Media Law Society


The rotten fruit issue ... Corruption busters busted for bias, concealment, and conflicts … Mistress of the office couch more damaged than the rape victim … Next round for Linda Reynolds … Reputation damaged by former attorney general … Miranda Devine smooches Trump ... Read on >> 

Free Newsletter
Justinian Columnists

From the cutting room floor...Handsy Heydon goes to Perth ... Celebrity tour ... Conferenceville ... Dicey's job application speech from 2002 ... Other High Court judges mocked as "vegetables" ... Mason CJ ridiculed ... Speech bowdlerised for public consumption ... Courage of conviction MIA ... From our National Affairs Correspondent ... Read more >> 

Blow the whistle

 

News snips ...


 

Lib-Nat government of Queensland appoints two new senior judges ... Court of Appeal and Northern Supreme Court ... Doyle KC and Johnstone KC ... Both from the same chambers ... Diversity at work ... More >>

Justinian's Bloggers

Letter from London ... Weather report ... Starmer sinking ... Farage rising ... Fake law firm ... Fake cases ...  NHS employee cleans up with woke case for hurt feelings ... Floyd Alexander-Hunt files from Blighty ... Read more >> 

"If there’s one family that hasn’t profited off politics, it's the Trump family."

Eric Trump, reported in the Financial Times, June 27, 2025 ... Read more flatulence ... 


Justinian Featurettes

Holding onto Hope ... Gina Rinehart's Bleak House ... Seeking chunks of the huge iron ore pit, Hope Downs ... Tracing the tangled Wright, Hancock, Rinehart litigation ... Allegations of fraud against the family trust ...Manoeuvring ... Tax "advice" ... Shifting vesting date ... Money, the root of unhappiness ... Anthony-James Kanaan reports ... Read more >> 


Justinian's archive

The High Court of Queensland ... Where to now for Bookshelves Brandis? ... Banana Benders in charge ... Eleven names scratched by CJ from Sunshine silks list ... Prosecutors dominate NSW Dizzo appointments ... Farewell to Equity Queen ... What life looked like nine years ago ... From Justinian's Archive, December 2, 2016 ... Read more >> 


 

 

« Rise of the bunyip silks | Main | Mother love »
Monday
Nov032014

Another round to Chris Dale

Action against Clayton Utz over dismissal of a partner ... Another procedural victory for plaintiff Chris Dale ... Now onto the main game ... Kate Lilly reports 

Smoke arising from the McCabe case has yet to settle

FORMER Clayton Utz partner and Law Institute president Chris Dale has won another round in his litigation against the national law shop. 

Justice Clyde Croft in the Vic Supremes has acceded to Dale's submissions about the way the forthcoming trial over his dismissal from the partnership should be conducted. 

In 2007 Clutz sacked Dale alleging that he'd leaked confidential details of an internal inquiry into the conduct of the Rolah McCabe tobacco litigation. 

The investigation led to the departure of two litigation partners who ran the defence for British American Tobacco in the McCabe case - Glenn Eggleton and Richard Travers. 

See: Spinning Clutz's internal memos  

The behaviour of Eggleton and Travers was examined by a Clutz committee that included Doug Jones, Nancy Milne and Chris Dale. 

The damaging findings ended-up with McCabe's solicitor Slater & Gordon and from there found their way into The Age newspaper. 

Dale was accused of being the leaker and sacked. The firm alleges: 

  • Breaches of the Partnership Acts of Victoria, NSW and the ACT;
  • Breaches of the relevant Legal Practice Acts of Victoria, NSW and the ACT and breaches of the Professional Conduct and Practice Rules of Victoria, NSW and the ACT;
  • Breaches of the paramount duty of candour to the court;
  • Dishonesty;
  • Intimidation;
  • The making of false statements;
  • Acting without instructions; and
  • Borrowing monies from clients.

The plaintiff says that this amounts to a roving commission into his conduct from as early as 1998 (which is two years prior to the establishment of the partnership from which he was expelled and seven years prior to the expulsion decision itself). 

Dale argued that Clayton Utz should bear the onus of proof in relation to his alleged professional and criminal misconduct - despite the fact that he is the one bringing the action.  

Dale's lawyers wrote to Clayton Utz and requested a "Protean Holdings" split. The firm refused, arguing:

"The matters in our client's amended defence which you suggest could be 'split' are not clearly distinguishable from the matters pleaded by the plaintiff. The matters ... largely occurred during the same period of time as, and are factually intertwined with, those matters which were before the board of our client at the time of its decision in respect of your client ... To do so would add to the complexity and length of the trial and, in our view, would be unworkable."

Justice Croft disagreed with Clayton Utz's assessment of the situation and granted Dale's application:

"There is no 'bifurcation' and likelihood of wasted time and duplicated evidence. In any event, the authorities to which reference has been made indicate that where a Protean Holdings 'split' is appropriate, considerations of fairness are of very significant importance ... fairness requires that each party, the plaintiff and the defendant, be required to lead in chief the evidence which they seek to rely upon to prove their cases which are, in my opinion, relevantly separate."

In addition to splitting the case, Dale sought to invoke privileges against self-incrimination, to the extent that compliance with certain procedural rules may expose him a civil penalty or criminal proceedings.  

Opposing the application, Clayton Utz argued the privilege, "is purely a defensive mechanism and does not apply to a plaintiff who voluntarily chooses to commence a civil action in respect to the subject matter of the claim for privilege".  

Alternatively, it was contended that Dale waived his privilege by bringing proceedings that inherently raised his conduct for determination and by submitting to a two-day police interview.  

Once again, Croft disagreed and granted Dale's application.  

"The plaintiff is with respect to the defendant's case - in substance - a defendant. He is not a 'volunteer' to this case as a plaintiff might be seen with respect to his, her or its own case. Consequently, even if I were of the opinion that the privileges could only be invoked by a defendant, it would truly be a triumph of form over 'a fundamental ... bulwark of liberty' if a plaintiff in the position of Mr Dale could not invoke the privileges in response to the defendant's case against him. Moreover, having regard to the manner in which the plaintiff's case is put and the defendants' pleading of a discrete and positive case against him, no unfairness or injustice arises for the defendant in the conduct of the firm's case as a result of the plaintiff invoking the privileges.

For the preceding reasons, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff's application should be acceded to." 

This is the latest success for Dale in the preliminary rounds of his damages action. 

In April last year he was successful in having Clayton Utz abandon its intention to retain Allan Myers to defend the action.  

See: Clutz appeals injunction against Allan Myers  

See: Clutz blinks 

See: Croft's reasons in full  

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.
Editor Permission Required
You must have editing permission for this entry in order to post comments.