The Court dismissed a self-represented plaintiff's application to restrain senior counsel from acting for the defendant, holding that the mere fact that counsel's spouse had previously acted for the plaintiff in unrelated proceedings approximately 15-20 years earlier did not establish a real and tangible possibility of misuse of confidential information, a duty of loyalty, or any basis for the Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction. The Court rejected the proposition that the knowledge of a spouse who previously acted for a party should be imputed to the other spouse, and emphasised that no evidence was adduced to support the contention that confidential information had been or might be disclosed. The application to restrain a non-party (a Law Society councillor) was also dismissed as there was no evidence of her involvement in the proceedings.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.