Berengo v Berengo - [2014] VSC 667

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION
PRACTICE COURT

SCI 3934 of 2014

GLORIA BERENGO (as Executor of the Estate of Robert Augustus Berengo)

Plaintiff

ESTATE OF GIUSEPPE ALDO BERENGO
DORIS ANTOINETTE BERENGO
PAUL ROMEO BERENGO

MARK ANTHONY BERENGO

Defendants

---

JUDGE:	McDONALD, J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	19 November 2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	19 November 2014 (Ex tempore) (Revised 29 January 2015)
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Berengo v Berengo & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSC 667

---

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS — Solicitors — Conflict of interest — Application to restrain solicitor from acting in litigation — No danger of disclosure of confidential information — Duty of loyalty — Application refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr R A Edmunds	Serafini & Hill Solicitors
For the Second, Third and Fourth Defendants	Mr M Wise	Dominic Esposito Solicitors & Attorneys

EX TEMORE (REVISED)

HIS HONOUR:

By a summons dated 9 October 2014, the plaintiff seeks orders:

1.That the defendants need to be restrained from retaining Dominic Esposito to act as their solicitor in this proceeding.
2.That Dominic Esposito be restrained from acting for each of the defendants in this proceeding and that he file and serve a notice of withdrawal of practitioner forthwith.
3.That the second and third and fourth defendants and/or Dominic Esposito, pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to this application on an indemnity basis, or alternatively, on any such basis as the court deems proper.

The plaintiff, as executor of the will and the estate of her late husband, Robert Augustus Berengo, the deceased, has brought this proceeding against the defendants seeking:

(a)declarations that the defendants and the deceased held their legal interests in the following commercial properties as equitable tenants in common for themselves and each other as members of the Berkem Properties Partnership, alternatively as equitable tenants in common for themselves and each other:
1. 618‑630 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne.
2. 632 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne.
3.114 Queensberry Street, North Melbourne, (‘the commercial properties’).

(b)orders that:
1.There be a taking of accounts that the Berkem Properties Partnership as at the date of the deceased's death, that is 15 May 2011, and thereafter.
2.The assets of Berkem Properties Partnership be realised and after payment of its proper debts and reliabilities, one‑fifth of the assets and one‑fifth of the net income since 15 May 2011, be paid to the plaintiff as executor of the deceased's estate.
3.The defendants transfer a one‑fifth interest in the commercial properties and one‑fifth of the net income from these properties earned since 15 May 2011 to the plaintiff as executor of the deceased's estate.
4.Vesting orders in favour of the plaintiff as executor of the deceased's estate of one‑fifth interest as tenant in common in the commercial properties plus one‑fifth of any net partnership income since 15 May 2011.

(c)orders that the Berkem Properties Partnership be wound up and one‑fifth of its assets after payment of its proper debts and liabilities…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Berengo v Berengo

Details

AGLC: Berengo v Berengo [2014] VSC 667
Case: [2014] VSC 667
Decision Date: 19 November 2014 (Ex tempore) (Revised 29 January 2015)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Berengo v Berengo involved a dispute between two parties, both of whom were clients of the same law firm. The central issue was whether the firm's solicitors could be restrained from acting in litigation on behalf of one of the clients due to a potential conflict of interest. The case was heard in a lower court in Australia, where the judge was tasked with determining whether the conflict of interest was significant enough to warrant such a restraint.

The legal issues the court had to address included the definition and scope of a conflict of interest in the context of legal practice, the duty of loyalty owed by solicitors to their clients, and the circumstances under which a court might intervene to prevent a solicitor from acting in litigation. The court needed to balance the client's right to choose their legal representation against the potential harm that could arise from a conflict of interest.

The court concluded that, while there was a potential conflict of interest, there was no real danger of confidential information being disclosed between the two clients. The court emphasised the importance of the duty of loyalty that solicitors owe to their clients but found that, in this instance, the potential conflict did not reach the level where the solicitor should be restrained from acting. The court decided against the application to restrain the solicitor, highlighting that the solicitor had taken reasonable steps to manage the conflict and that the clients had been fully informed and had consented to the solicitor's representation. The court did not make any final orders as the application to restrain was dismissed.

Orders