Dugan v Process Holdings Pty Ltd - [2021] VSC 555

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMERCIAL COURT
COMMERCIAL LIST

S ECI 2019 04063

CRAIG FRANCIS DUGAN and others	Plaintiffs
v
PROCESS HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 138 041 488) and others	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	LYONS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	10 August 2021, further written submissions from the parties dated 12 August 2021 and 24 August 2021.
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	9 September 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Dugan v Process Holdings Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 555

---

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – Application by defendants to restrain firm from continuing to act for plaintiffs – Whether firm should cease to act for client where solicitor giving evidence as a material witness – Inherent jurisdiction of Court over its officers and to control its processes – Nature of conflict between solicitor’s duty to act in client’s best interests and solicitor’s own personal interest (financial, reputational or otherwise) – Low risk of inconsistency between evidence of solicitor and evidence or claim of former client – Resulting low risk of relevant conflict – Discretionary factors weigh against restraint including exceptional nature of jurisdiction and stage of proceeding.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Whether defence discloses cause of action or may prejudice or embarrass the fair trial – Failure to plead elements of defence – Plea embarrassing where conclusion with unstated facts – Plea embarrassing where vague and unintelligible – Strike out of pleading on Court’s own motion.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr S. Marks QC with Mr B. Gibson	Thomson Geer
For the Second to Thirteenth and Fifteenth Defendants	Mr M. Clarke QC with Ms V. Plain	Cornwalls

HIS HONOUR:

INTRODUCTION

There were two applications listed for hearing on 10 August 2021. First, the second to thirteenth defendants and the fifteenth defendant sought to restrain Thomson Geer from continuing to act as solicitors for the plaintiffs in this proceeding (the ‘restraint application’). For convenience, I will refer to the second to thirteenth defendants and the fifteenth defendant as the ‘defendants’. Second, the plaintiffs sought to strike out certain paragraphs of the amended defences filed by the defendants in this proceeding (the ‘strike out application’).

However, on the day before the hearing of these applications, the defendants filed an affidavit exhibiting a proposed further amended defence (‘PFAD’) seeking to address some of the concerns of the plaintiffs raised in the strikeout application. The defendants sought leave to file the PFAD at the hearing of these applications (the ‘amendment application’). As all these applications are, in part, related I heard and determined them together.

It is appropriate that I set out the evidence that was relied upon in these applications. The defendants relied upon six affidavits of Radhika Kanhai affirmed on 26 March 2021, 14 May 2021, 21 May 2021, 28 May 2021, 9 August 2021 and 24 August 2021 (the ‘sixth Kanhai affidavit’). The plaintiffs relied upon four affidavits of Michael Barrett sworn on 14 May 2021 (the ‘first Barrett affidavit’), 21 May 2021…

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 Dugan v Process Holdings Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Dugan v Process Holdings Pty Ltd [2021] VSC 555
Case: [2021] VSC 555
Decision Date: 9 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Dugan v Process Holdings Pty Ltd, the defendants sought an order to restrain the plaintiffs' legal firm from continuing to act on their behalf, claiming a conflict of interest due to a solicitor from the firm acting as a material witness. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The defendants argued that the solicitor’s dual role as an advocate for the plaintiffs and a material witness created a conflict of interest, thereby compromising the integrity of the trial. The court was tasked with determining whether this potential conflict warranted the restraint of the firm from acting for the plaintiffs.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the inherent jurisdiction over its officers and the control over its processes could be exercised to restrain the plaintiffs' legal firm. The court examined the nature of the conflict between the solicitor's duty to act in the best interests of the client and the solicitor's personal interests. The court assessed the risk of inconsistency between the solicitor’s evidence and that of the former client, finding it to be low. Consequently, the risk of a relevant conflict was also deemed low. The court also considered discretionary factors, including the exceptional nature of the jurisdiction and the stage of the proceeding, which weighed against the restraint of the firm.

The court determined that the discretionary factors, including the exceptional nature of the jurisdiction and the stage of the proceeding, outweighed the potential conflict of interest. The risk of inconsistency between the solicitor’s evidence and that of the former client was found to be low, resulting in a low risk of a relevant conflict. The court concluded that it was not necessary to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to restrain the plaintiffs' legal firm from acting on their behalf. The court did not find the defence to be sufficient grounds to strike out the pleadings.

Orders