Kallinicos v Hunt

In the Federal Court of Australia, Kallinicos sought to restrain Hunt, a former solicitor, from acting against him in proceedings related to his former role as a director of a company. The dispute centred on whether Hunt's involvement in the litigation was inappropriate and warranted a court order to prevent it. The court had to determine the circumstances under which a former solicitor could be restrained from acting against a former client and whether the inherent supervisory jurisdiction could still be exercised following the case of Prince Jefri Bolkiah v KPMG.

The key legal issue was whether the court could intervene to restrain a former solicitor from acting against a former client based solely on a breach of confidence, or whether the inherent supervisory jurisdiction could be exercised to prevent an objective perception of a want of independence and impartiality. The court considered the established principles and tests for intervention in such circumstances. It was necessary to examine whether the solicitor's conduct gave rise to an objective perception of a lack of independence or impartiality, which would necessitate removal from the case.

The court concluded that the inherent supervisory jurisdiction remained available in appropriate circumstances. It held that the test for intervention involves considering whether the solicitor's conduct would lead to an objective perception of a lack of independence or impartiality, necessitating their removal. The court also acknowledged that discretionary considerations could influence the decision to intervene. The inherent jurisdiction could still be exercised to ensure the integrity of the legal process and the public's confidence in it. In this case, the court determined that Hunt could continue to act in the proceedings, as there was no objective perception of a lack of independence or impartiality.