DECOLA & DECOLA

The Family Court of Australia considered an application by the trustee-in-bankruptcy to join proceedings, which was granted. The court also addressed an application to restrain a solicitor from acting for the trustee-in-bankruptcy, as the solicitor had previously acted for the husband. The liquidator was suing the husband for uncommercial transactions and insolvent trading.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the trustee-in-bankruptcy should be joined to the proceedings and whether the solicitor, having previously represented the husband, should be restrained from acting for the trustee-in-bankruptcy in circumstances where the liquidator was pursuing claims against the husband. The court also noted, in passing, that the claim for money had and received is no longer maintainable as a separate cause of action, having been subsumed into broader restitutionary claims, referencing the High Court's decision in *Australian Financial Services & Leasing Pty Ltd v Hills Industries Ltd*.

In determining the application to restrain the solicitor, the court applied principles concerning the administration of justice and the duty of solicitors to avoid conflicts of interest. The court considered the potential for prejudice and the importance of maintaining public confidence in the legal profession. The court found that the solicitor's prior representation of the husband created a conflict of interest that warranted restraint to uphold the integrity of the legal process.

The court ordered that the solicitor be restrained from acting for the trustee-in-bankruptcy.