The applicant's interlocutory application to restrain the respondent's solicitors from continuing to act was refused; the proceeding was adjourned for further directions and costs were reserved. The Tribunal confirmed that the applicable test for restraining a solicitor on 'interests of justice' grounds is whether a fair-minded, reasonably informed member of the public 'would conclude' (not merely 'might conclude') that the proper administration of justice requires the practitioner be prevented from acting, applying Kallinicos v Hunt [2005] NSWSC 1181. Criticisms directed at the correctness of a solicitor's prior advice to the client do not, without more, establish the personal stake in the outcome required by Mitchell v Burrell [2008] NSWSC 772; the case is distinguishable from Gangemi Pty Ltd v Luppino Pty Ltd [2012] VSC 168 where the solicitor's own drafting error was the sole basis of the claim and created direct financial liability. The material witness ground was not made out where the solicitor's advice and conduct were recorded in writing and no subjective intention evidence was relevant to any fact in issue.
The full text is available to signed-in members.