Corrigan & Bambridge

Case [2021] FedCFamC1F 31

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 1)

Corrigan & Bambridge [2021] FedCFamC1F 31

File number(s): SYC 7523 of 2020
Judgment of: HENDERSON J
Date of judgment: 10 September 2021
Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Legal Practitioners – Application of the father to restrain a firm of solicitors and a particular solicitor from that firm from acting for his former partner in current proceedings – Application granted
Cases cited:

Billington & Billington (No 2) [2008] FamCA 409 at [43]

Dyer v Chrysanthou (No 2) (Injunction) [2021] FCA 641

Osferatu & Osferatu (2015) FLC 93-666
Division: Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs: 52
Date of hearing: 16 August 2021
Place: Sydney
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr O’Reilly
Solicitor for the Applicant: Mills Oakley Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Liedermann
Solicitor for the Respondent: Shukla & Associates Law Practice

ORDERS

SYC 7523 of 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN:

MS CORRIGAN
Applicant
AND:

MR BAMBRIDGE
Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

HENDERSON J

DATE OF ORDER:

10 SEPTEMBER 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.That Mills Oakley Lawyers and Ms D be restrained from acting on behalf of the applicant mother, Ms Corrigan, in proceedings between Ms Corrigan and Mr Bambridge.

Note:   The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym Corrigan & Bambridge has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This was an application by the father Mr Bambridge (“the father”) seeking to restrain Mills Oakley (“the Firm”) and, in particular, Ms D, solicitor, from acting for his former partner Ms Corrigan (“the mother”).

  2. The application for the restraint was contained in a Response to an Application in a Case filed by the father on 26 May 2021 and supported by an affidavit of 13 August 2021 and an affidavit of 26 May 2021. The most pertinent affidavit is that of 13 August 2021 commencing at paragraph 67 where the father says as follows under the heading “Previous Legal Advice from Mills Oakley”:

    On or around 2012-2013 Ms Corrigan was going through the Family Court system with her ex husband (Mr H, as pronounced).  To the best of my knowledge, Ms Corrigan’s solicitor was Ms D.

    68. In 2015 I had Family Law problems & pending ADVO with my ex partner (Ms…

Continue reading Corrigan & Bambridge

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Corrigan & Bambridge [2021] FedCFamC1F 31
Case
[2021] FedCFamC1F 31
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves Corrigan and Bambridge, with Corrigan retaining the services of Ms. D, who previously acted as Bambridge's solicitor in family law matters. The primary issue before the court was whether Ms. D could disclose confidential information she obtained from Bambridge in his previous relationship with his former partner to Corrigan, Bambridge's current partner, in their ongoing dispute. The court had to determine if Ms. D’s communications with Bambridge constituted confidential information that could not be disclosed to Corrigan without breaching her duty of confidentiality.

The court considered whether the information obtained by Ms. D, which related to Bambridge's conduct, behavior, and tactics in family law proceedings, was protected under legal professional privilege. Given that Bambridge had been found guilty of violent conduct towards a child's mother, and Corrigan raised similar issues in her proceedings against Bambridge, the court had to assess the extent to which such information could be disclosed. The court had to balance the need for fairness in the current proceedings against the obligation of Ms. D to maintain confidentiality, which could potentially disadvantage Bambridge and undermine the integrity of the legal process.

The court found that the information Ms. D obtained from her previous client, Bambridge, regarding his conduct and characteristics, was indeed confidential and should not be disclosed to Corrigan. The court ruled that such information could unfairly prejudice Bambridge in his current proceedings with Corrigan and would breach Ms. D’s duty of confidence. Consequently, Ms. D was prohibited from disclosing this information to Corrigan, ensuring that Bambridge was not placed at a disadvantage and that the administration of justice was not brought into disrepute. The court's decision underscored the importance of maintaining confidentiality in legal practice to protect clients and uphold the integrity of legal proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Again quoting from Dyer at paragraph 129, referring to Nettle J's decision in Sent:One knows as a matter of experience that when he has advised on documents and transactions, recollections of them, although long faded, may revive in the course of the sort of close and careful study which precedes the trial of an action. And when one has conferred with a client, recollection of things said and done in conference may be revived long after the event when the same or similar things are said or done in another place.CONCLUSION Ms D was Mr Bambridge’s solicitor in proceedings between he and his former partner. In that relationship, Ms D obtained information from him concerning ADVO proceedings and family law proceedings regarding him spending time with his son W. This is clear and apparent from the correspondence entered into between the father, Ms F, Ms D and the mother annexed to the father’s affidavit. Ms Corrigan has retained Ms D in the proceedings between she and Mr Bambridge. The issues before the Court between them encompass the same issues as existed between Mr Bambridge and his former partner, namely how best to go about obtaining orders to spend time with his son in circumstances where Mr Bambridge has been found guilty of violent conduct towards the child’s mother. The communication between Ms D and Mr Bambridge must have included how to go about commencing proceedings, how to address the issue of violence to the child’s mother, how to address the Court and mother’s concerns, what the father needed to do to maximise his chance of success and minimise failure, courses he should attend, the putting forward of proposals etcetera. The issue that Ms D and Mr Bambridge had conferences about and entered into correspondence about must have had, at minimum, a striking similarity to the issues before the Court now between Ms Corrigan and Mr Bambridge. There can be no doubt that Ms D, a competent, experienced practitioner would, to use Gillard J’s words, have learned a great deal about Mr Bambridge such as:…his strengths, his weaknesses, his honesty or lack thereof, his reaction to crisis, pressure or tension, his attitude to litigation and settling cases and his tactics…the overall opinion formed by a solicitor of his client as a result of his contact may in the circumstances result to confidential information that should not be disclosed or used against the client. Ms Corrigan, like all of Mr Bambridge’s previous partners, has complained about his conduct and attitude towards her and the risk of harm to the child in the father’s care. There have been criminal charges laid against Mr Bambridge vis-à-vis Ms Corrigan, who was at one time in 2015 very supportive of Mr Bambridge. The very fact in issue that a Judge of this Court will need to determine ultimately, namely whether there is a risk or unacceptable risk of harm to the child in his father’s care due to the father’s behaviour, conduct and attitude towards Ms Corrigan will encompass his behaviour in other personal relationships, particularly those where children are involved. These matters will be highly relevant to the issues before the Court. In those circumstances, the information Ms D obtained from her conference with Mr Bambridge falls squarely within confidential information about the type of person, to use Mr Liedermann’s words, the “characteristics” of Mr Bambridge which could well be unfairly used against him, thus putting at risk Ms D breaching her obligation of confidence to the husband and placing the husband at a serious disadvantage and bringing into disrepute the administration of justice.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.