Rondel v Worsley

Subject Matter

BARRISTER — Client — Duty to accept — Whether liable to client in negligence

[1967] 1 QB 443; [1969] 1 AC 191; [1966] 2 WLR 300; [1966] 3 WLR 950; [1967] 3 WLR 1666

BARRISTER — Duty to court — Nature of — Whether minister of justice

[1967] 1 QB 443; [1969] 1 AC 191; [1966] 2 WLR 300; [1966] 3 WLR 950; [1967] 3 WLR 1666

BARRISTER — Negligence — Advocate, as — Whether minister of justice — Whether action for negligence will lie at suit of client — Basis of immunity

[1967] 1 QB 443; [1969] 1 AC 191; [1966] 2 WLR 300; [1966] 3 WLR 950; [1967] 3 WLR 1666

JUDICIAL PRECEDENT — Old decision — Medieval or nineteenth century — Based on a society that has changed — Whether binding — Status of barrister

[1967] 1 QB 443; [1966] 2 WLR 300

LAW REPORT — Year Books and early cases — Status as Law Reports — Whether authoritative in modern conditions

[1967] 1 QB 443; [1966] 2 WLR 300

NEGLIGENCE — Duty of care to whom? — Advocate — Barrister — Conduct of case in court — Whether client may sue for negligence

[1967] 1 QB 443; [1969] 1 AC 191; [1966] 2 WLR 300; [1966] 3 WLR 950; [1967] 3 WLR 1666

PUBLIC POLICY — Administration of justice — Immunity from action for conduct in court — Barrister sharing immunity — Whether immunity extending to advisory work unconnected with proceedings in court

[1967] 1 QB 443; [1969] 1 AC 191; [1966] 3 WLR 950; [1967] 3 WLR 1666

SOLICITOR — Negligence — Advocate, as — Whether liable to client

[1967] 1 QB 443; [1969] 1 AC 191; [1966] 2 WLR 300; [1966] 3 WLR 950; [1967] 3 WLR 1666

Appellate History