Billington & Billington (No 2)

In *Billington & Billington (No 2)*, the husband applied to the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia to restrain the firm of solicitors retained by the wife from acting for her in his appeal. The basis of the application was that a particular solicitor within the wife's firm had previously been employed by the husband's solicitors and had appeared at a directions hearing on behalf of the husband.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the wife's solicitors should be restrained from acting for her due to a potential conflict of interest arising from the solicitor's prior employment. This involved considering whether the solicitor had come into possession of confidential information relevant to the husband's appeal and, if so, whether that information was actually or potentially relevant to the appeal proceedings. The court also considered applications to adduce further evidence on appeal and the implications of the solicitor's failure to give evidence.

Coleman J dismissed the husband's application, finding that it had not been established that the solicitor had come into possession of confidential evidence relating to the husband through her appearance at the directions hearing. Even if she had, the court held that it was not demonstrated that such information was actually or potentially relevant to the husband's appeal. The court distinguished between trial and appeal proceedings in this context and noted that the applications to adduce further evidence did not appear to be dependent on any knowledge the solicitor might have acquired. Furthermore, no adverse inferences could be drawn from the solicitor's failure to give evidence, as there was a reasonable explanation for her not doing so.

Consequently, the court ordered that the husband's application be dismissed and that the husband pay the wife's costs of and incidental to the application.