Jing Li v Jin Lian Group Pty Ltd - [2018] NSWSC 479

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Jing Li v Jin Lian Group Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 479
Hearing dates: 9 April 2018
Decision date: 20 April 2018
Before: Gleeson JA
Decision:
(1)   The interlocutory process filed 15 March 2018 be dismissed.

(2)   Costs reserved.
(3)   Direct that the parties file and serve short written submissions (not exceeding three pages) on the question of costs as follows: (a) submissions of Mills Oakley and the plaintiff within seven days and (b) submissions in response by the defendant within a further seven days. The question of costs will be dealt with on the papers.
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – restraining solicitors from acting – inherent jurisdiction – integrity of judicial process – due administration of justice – where solicitors allegedly in receipt of confidential information – whether information claimed to be confidential identified with specificity – whether information imparted for a limited purpose – whether real and sensible possibility of misuse of allegedly confidential information.
Legislation Cited: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 459P, 459Q, 459S
Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015 (NSW), r 10
Cases Cited: Ackroyds (London) Ltd v Islington Plastics Ltd (1962) RPC 97
Bahonko v Nurses Board of Victoria (No 3) [2007] FCA 49
Carindale Country Club Estate v Astill (1993) 42 FCR 307
Castrol Australia Pty Ltd v EmTech Associates Pty Ltd (1980) 33 ALR 31
Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd (1969) RPC 41, 47
Corrs Pavey Whiting & Byrne v Collector of Customs (Vic) (1987) 14 FCR 434
Dealer Support Services Pty Ltd v Motor Trades Association of Australia Ltd [2014] FCA 1065
Fakhrabadi v Ashrafinia [2011] NSWSC 697
Farrow Mortgage Services Pty Ltd (in liq) v Mendall Properties Pty Ltd [1995] 1 VR 1
Geelong School Supplies Pty Ltd v Dean [2006] FCA 1404
Grimwade v Meagher [1995] 1 VR 446 at 452;
Half Court Tennis Pty Ltd v Seymour (1980) 53 FLR 240
Interfirm Comparison (Australia) Pty Ltd v Law Society of New South Wales [1975] 2 NSWLR 104
Kallinicos v Hunt (2005) 64 NSWLR 561; [2005] NSWSC 1181
Mense v Milenkovic [1973] VR 784
Re IPM Group Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 240
Smith Kline & French Laboratories (Aust) Ltd v Secretary, Department of Community Services & Health (1990) 22 FCR 73
Westpac Banking Corporation v Newey [2013] NSWSC 533
Yunghanns v Elfic (VSC, 3 July 1998, Gillard J, unreported)
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Jing Li (Plaintiff)
Jin Lian Group Pty Ltd (Defendant)
Mills Oakley Lawyers Pty Ltd (Respondent to the Motion)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr F Assaf (Plaintiff)
Mr H Insall SC (Defendant)
Mr A Moses SC /Diana Tang (Respondent to the Motion)
Solicitors:
Mills Oakley Lawyers Pty Ltd (Plaintiff)
Auyeung Hencent & Day (Defendant)
Mills Oakley Lawyers Pty Ltd (Respondent to the Motion)

File Number(s): 2018/23986

Judgment

GLEESON JA: Application is made by the defendant, Jin Lian Group Pty Ltd (JLG), to restrain Mills Oakley Lawyers Pty Ltd (Mills Oakley) and its employed solicitors…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Jing Li v Jin Lian Group Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] NSWSC 479
Decision Date: 20 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Jing Li v Jin Lian Group Pty Ltd, the dispute arose from an allegation that solicitors, acting for the defendant company, had received confidential information from a third party and were now using it in a way that was prejudicial to the plaintiff. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff, Jing Li, sought an order restraining the solicitors from acting for the defendant in proceedings before the court, alleging that the solicitors had breached their duty of confidentiality.

The central legal issue for the court was whether the solicitors were indeed in possession of confidential information and, if so, whether there was a real and sensible possibility that they would misuse this information. The court had to determine if the information in question was clearly identified and if it had been imparted for a limited purpose. Furthermore, the court examined whether the solicitors' use of the information would undermine the integrity of the judicial process and the due administration of justice.

The court found that the information in question was not sufficiently identified with specificity to be considered confidential. It was also determined that the information had been imparted for a limited purpose, and there was no evidence to suggest that the solicitors would misuse it. Consequently, the court ruled against the plaintiff's application for the restraining order. The court emphasised the importance of the integrity of the judicial process and the due administration of justice but found no basis to interfere with the solicitors' conduct in this case.

No orders were made against the solicitors or the defendant company. The court dismissed the plaintiff's application in its entirety.

Orders