Lee v Keddie

The applicants in the matter of Lee v Keddie were the plaintiffs, Lee and another, who sought to vacate the hearing of a defamation action against the defendants, Keddie and another. The plaintiffs had previously engaged senior counsel, who had given legal advice to the defendants. The defendants contested the continued retainer of this counsel for the plaintiffs, leading to the applicants seeking to vacate the hearing. The plaintiffs had been unable to find alternative senior counsel on short notice, which formed the basis of their application.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiffs should be required to proceed with the hearing without the benefit of senior counsel, given the circumstances surrounding the engagement of their current counsel. The court had to consider the implications of the counsel's prior involvement with the defendants, the urgency of the matter, and the ability of the plaintiffs to secure alternative representation. Additionally, the court needed to weigh the potential prejudice to the defendants against the fairness and efficiency of the proceedings.

In deciding the application, the court recognised the unique circumstances of the case, particularly the conflict of interest presented by the counsel's prior advice to the defendants. The court acknowledged the plaintiffs' inability to secure alternative senior counsel on short notice and the potential for significant prejudice to the plaintiffs' case if the hearing proceeded without senior representation. Balancing these factors, the court concluded that it was in the interests of justice to vacate the hearing. The court reserved the question of costs for later determination, indicating that it would consider the circumstances surrounding the application and the reasons for the vacating of the hearing when making that decision.