Dolomet Pty Ltd and Anor v Minter Ellison

Dolomet Pty Ltd and Anor (the applicants) sought to restrain Minter Ellison (the respondent), a law firm, from acting for a new client in a matter that involved confidential information previously provided by the applicants to the respondent. The applicants argued that the respondent's proposed representation of the new client would breach their duty of confidentiality and potentially their duty to avoid a conflict of interest. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the respondent was disqualified from acting for the new client due to its prior retainer by the applicants, and if so, whether an injunction should be granted to restrain the respondent. Specifically, the court had to consider the nature of the duty of confidentiality owed by a solicitor to a former client, the circumstances in which that duty could be breached, and the test for determining whether a solicitor's knowledge of confidential information from a former client would be "realistically" or "unquestionably" used to the detriment of that former client in the new retainer.

The High Court, in dismissing the applicants' appeal, applied the principles established in *Kallinicos v Hunt* and *Prince Jefri Bolkiah v KPMG*. The court held that the test for disqualification is whether the solicitor has, or is reasonably likely to have, acquired relevant confidential information from the former client, and whether that information could be used to the detriment of the former client in the new retainer. The court found that the information possessed by Minter Ellison was not sufficiently specific or relevant to the new retainer to give rise to a real or appreciable risk of prejudice to the applicants. The court emphasised that the mere possibility of a conflict or the possession of general knowledge was insufficient to warrant disqualification.

The High Court ordered that the appeal be dismissed.