Case: Prince Jefri Bolkiah v KPMG (a firm) [1998] UKHL 52 ; [1999] 2 AC 222
Outcome: considered
Spincode Pty Ltd v Look Software Pty Ltd [2001] VSCA 248 ; (2001) 4 VR 501 ( 'Spincode' ) at 521-524 [52]-[58], Brooking JA identified three possible grounds for restraining a solicitor or counsel from acting for a particular party to litigation: the danger of misuse of confidential information; a breach of a fiduciary duty of loyalty not to act against a client, or against a former client in the same matter or a closely related matter; and the inherent jurisdiction of the court to control the conduct of solicitors and counsel as officers of the court. These three grounds represented the orthodox legal position in Australia prior to the decision of the House of Lords in Prince Jefri Bolkiah v KPMG (a firm) [1998] UKHL 52 ; [1999] 2 AC 222 ( 'Bolkiah' ) which held that the duty of loyalty did not survive the termination of the relationship with the client. Brooking JA's analysis in Spincode has been consistently followed and applied in Victoria: see Sent v John Fairfax Publication Pty Ltd [2002] VSC 429 ; Pinnacle Living Pty Ltd v Elusive Image Pty Ltd [2006] VSC 202 ; and Adam 12 Holdings Pty Ltd v Eat &amp; Drink Holdings Pty Ltd [2006] VSC 152. But it has not been followed in New South Wales. In Belan v Casey [2002] NSWSC 58 ( 'Belan' ) at [15]-[21], Young CJ in Eq held that since the House of Lords decision in Bolkiah the overwhelming weight of authority establishes that the jurisdiction of the court to intervene at the suit of a former client to restrain a solicitor from acting is founded solely on the real risk of disclosure of confidential information, and is not connected with some principle of conflict of interest. The decision in Belan has been followed and applied in New South Wales: British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd v Blanch [2004] NSWSC 70 (Young CJ in Eq) at [97]-[104]; Asia Pacific Telecommunications Ltd v Optus Networks Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 550 (Bergin J) at [51]-[55]. Although the Supreme Court of New South Wales has declined to follow Spincode , insofar as Brooking JA held that the equitable obligation of loyalty owed by a solicitor to his or her client survives the termination of the retainer, the decisions in New South Wales do not cast any doubt upon the court's inherent power to restrain solicitors from acting in a particular case having regard to the interests of the administration of justice. Similarly, the court's inherent supervisory jurisdiction over solicitors and counsel was not relevant to the House of Lords decision in Bolkiah . In Kallinicos v Hunt [2005] NSWSC 1181 ; (2005) 64 NSWLR 561 ( 'Kallinicos' ), Brereton J undertook a comprehensive examination of the authorities concerning the court's supervisory jurisdiction over solicitors. His Honour concluded that there are many authorities which maintain the same view of the court's supervisory jurisdiction as that which had been expressed in the cases prior to Bolkiah : see eg McVeigh v Linen House Pty Ltd [1999] VSCA 138 ; [1999] 3 VR 394, Oceanic Life Ltd v HIH Casualty &amp; General Insurance Ltd (1999) 10 ANZ Ins Cas 61-438; Newman v Phillips Fox (a firm) (1999) 21 WAR 309; Bowen v Stott [2004] WASC 94 (Hasluck J) ( 'Bowen v Stott' ); see also Westgold Resources NL v St Barbara Mines Ltd [2002] WASC 264. In PhotoCure , Goldberg J did not refer to his earlier decision in Lincoln . This is not surprising because there is no conflict between the two decisions. PhotoCure concerned an application by a former client based primarily on the risk of misuse of confidential information. His Honour's discussion of Bolkiah , Belan v Casey and Spincode was directed to the question whether a former client was confined to the ground of misuse of confidential information, or whether the client could also rely upon the ground of breach of a duty of loyalty as suggested by Brooking JA in Spincode . Goldberg J did not express any concluded views concerning the Court's supervisory jurisdiction. At 98 [57], his Honour said that: 'Even if the basis of loyalty to the client or supervision by the court of solicitors as officers of the court is relevant, there is no room for the operation of those principles in the present circumstances as none of the persons who were involved in the receipt of instructions from, and the giving of advice to, PhotoCure between November 1999 and May 2000 are involved in acting for Dusa in relation to the present proceeding.' His Honour also said at 98 [58] that he was troubled because an initial reaction to the issue was that it was inappropriate for a solicitor to act against a former client where the subject matter of the retainer is the same as the retainer by the former client. In my opinion, nothing in PhotoCure should be read as foreclosing this Court's power to exercise inherent jurisdiction over the conduct of solicitors and counsel in litigation in this Court.