All is 1 Pty Ltd t/as Banga Legal v Townsend

All is 1 Pty Ltd trading as Banga Legal (the plaintiff) brought an action against Townsend (the defendant) in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The plaintiff sought to restrain the defendant's legal firm from acting for the defendant on the basis that a former consultant solicitor of the plaintiff had become employed by the defendant's firm and possessed confidential information. The plaintiff argued that this presented a conflict of interest and a risk of forensic advantage.

The court was required to determine whether the defendant's firm should be restrained from acting for the defendant due to the former consultant solicitor's possession of confidential information. The court needed to consider whether the former solicitor's knowledge of the plaintiff's litigation strategies, personality and vulnerabilities, as well as the professional and personal relationship between the solicitor and the plaintiffs, constituted confidential information. The court also needed to assess whether the employment of the former solicitor by the defendant's firm presented a risk of forensic advantage and whether it was likely that the solicitor would be a witness in the proceedings.

The court found that the former solicitor had indeed possessed confidential information about the plaintiffs. The court accepted that the solicitor's knowledge of the plaintiffs' litigation strategies, personality and vulnerabilities, as well as the professional and personal relationship between the solicitor and the plaintiffs, constituted confidential information. The court was satisfied that the employment of the former solicitor by the defendant's firm presented a risk of forensic advantage and that it was likely that the solicitor would be a witness in the proceedings. The court concluded that a fair-minded reasonably informed member of the community would regard the proper administration of justice as requiring the defendant's firm to be prevented from acting. The court also acknowledged the freedom of a party to retain a solicitor of their choice, but found that in this case, the risk of a breach of confidence outweighed this freedom.

The court granted the plaintiff's application for restraint, restraining the defendant's firm from acting for the defendant in the proceedings. The court noted that the restraint was necessary to protect the confidentiality of the plaintiffs' information and to ensure the proper administration of justice.