Arsalan v Rixon; Nguyen v Cassim

The High Court of Australia considered appeals in two separate matters, *Arsalan v Rixon* and *Nguyen v Cassim*. Both cases concerned the application of the *Civil Procedure Act 2010* (Vic) and, in particular, the duty of legal practitioners to act honestly and efficiently in the conduct of litigation. The central dispute in *Arsalan v Rixon* involved allegations of misleading conduct by a solicitor, while *Nguyen v Cassim* concerned a solicitor's alleged failure to act with due diligence and to keep their client informed.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was the proper interpretation and application of section 14 of the *Civil Procedure Act 2010* (Vic), which imposes a duty on legal practitioners to act honestly and to conduct litigation efficiently. The Court was required to determine whether the conduct of the legal practitioners in each case breached this statutory duty and, if so, what consequences flowed from such a breach. This involved considering the scope of the duty, the standard of conduct expected, and the circumstances in which a breach could be established.

In its joint judgment, the High Court clarified that section 14 of the *Civil Procedure Act 2010* (Vic) imposes a positive and personal duty on legal practitioners. The Court held that the duty to act honestly requires practitioners to refrain from misleading the court or opposing parties, and the duty to conduct litigation efficiently requires them to take reasonable steps to avoid unnecessary delay and expense. The Court found that the conduct in *Arsalan v Rixon* did not amount to a breach of section 14, as the solicitor's actions, while perhaps ill-advised, were not dishonest. However, in *Nguyen v Cassim*, the Court found that the solicitor's persistent failure to communicate with their client and to take steps to advance the litigation constituted a breach of the duty to act efficiently. The Court emphasised that the statutory duties are not merely aspirational but impose enforceable obligations.

The appeals in *Arsalan v Rixon* were dismissed, while the appeal in *Nguyen v Cassim* was allowed. The High Court remitted *Nguyen v Cassim* to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal for redetermination of the appropriate orders.