The Court held that solicitors will not be restrained from acting merely because they have a financial or reputational interest in the litigation outcome, where sophisticated clients have given fully informed consent after receiving independent advice. The Court emphasised that the test is whether a fair-minded observer 'would conclude' (not merely 'might conclude') that the proper administration of justice requires restraint, confirming this is an exceptional remedy requiring a high degree of satisfaction. The Court found that even where solicitors face potential liability for defamation and negligent advice arising from a media statement they published, this conflict can be waived by legally sophisticated clients who understand the risks.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 7 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.