In the suit, former client Matt Murphy accuses the firm with breach of contract and negligence over legal advice it provided to him in relation to his personal injury claims against the state of Western Australia and prison manager Serco Australia Pty Ltd arising from his incarceration.

Murphy alleges that he received incorrect advice about the relevant limitation period for his claims from a solicitor who has since left the firm and is not cooperating with its defence.

In a decision handed down in the Supreme Court of Western Australia on Wednesday, Master Craig Sanderson rejected Murphy’s bid for summary judgment, finding that the case for the firm’s liability “was not so clear, given the limitations faced by the defendant” because of the uncooperative solicitor.

“This was an unusual case,” he said.

“It is one of those rare instances where the defendant, through no fault of its own, was simply unable to adequately investigate the circumstances of the case so as to respond to the plaintiff’s summary judgment application.

“In my view, this case was not so clear, given the limitations faced by the defendant, as to warrant the grant of summary judgment.”

Murphy, who says he suffered physical and sexual assault between October 2015 and August 2017 while incarcerated at several prisons across Western Australia, alleges the firm failed to commence the proceedings against the state and Serco within time.

In his decision, Master Sanderson noted that there “can be no doubt” that Maurice Blackburn, who was consulted in relation to the alleged assaults, owed a duty to make its best efforts to protect his interests and exercise reasonable care and skill in executing his instructions.

Murphy alleges the state Department of Corrective Services and Serco, which manages security at Acacia Prison, knew he was potentially at risk and owed him a common law duty to exercise reasonable care for his safety.

Murphy also denied release from Harman undertaking for media interviews

Murphy also lost a bid for orders releasing him from the implied undertaking of confidentiality in relation to all documents and pleadings related to the matter, which he said he intended to use for “media interviews.”

Alternatively, Murphy sought all such documents excluding those obtained by discovery or subpoena.

The judge found that Murphy had failed to establish the special circumstances necessary to release him from the implied undertaking, agreeing with Maurice Blackburn that Murphy failed to properly identify the documents subject to the release and that the release was sought for an improper purpose.

“If circumstances arise where the interests of justice require the party who is provided with the documents to be permitted to make use of those documents for other purposes, then the undertaking can be varied,” the judge said

“But it is very difficult to envisage a circumstance where the undertaking would be varied simply to allow a party to approach the media and advance a case through publicity.  That is what is being done here.

“When the matter is viewed in that way, there is no basis upon which the undertaking can be varied.”

Murphy is self represented. Maurice Blackburn is represented by Carolyn Moss, instructed by Sparke Helmore.

Copyright Lawyerly Media. Unauthorised reproduction, distribution or sharing of this article is prohibited.

A reprint licence is required to reproduce, distribute or share this article. Contact Us for a reprint licence.