The inherent jurisdiction to restrain a legal practitioner from acting is not a substitute for disciplinary proceedings and will not be exercised merely because allegations of misconduct are made. In appellate proceedings, the reluctance to deprive a litigant of their chosen practitioner is magnified because restraint would deprive the appellate court of the assistance of practitioners with direct knowledge of the case below. A party aware of circumstances potentially warranting a restraining order must act promptly; unexplained delay of years will militate against relief, and tactical delay pending the outcome of substantive proceedings will be viewed with disfavour.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 20 later cases that cite this judgment.
5 of the 20 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.