LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD -v- LASHANSKY [2008] WASC 294
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2008] WASC 294 | |
| Case No: | LPD:3/2000 | 7 OCTOBER 2008 | |
| Coram: | TEMPLEMAN J | 16/12/08 | |
| 35 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD ROBERT JAMES LASHANSKY |
Catchwords: | Practitioners Application to restrain firm from acting for opposing client Allegations that firm possessed confidential information of the applicant, was in conflict between duties to clients and engaged in improper conduct Evidentiary basis not established |
Legislation: | Legal Practitioners Act 1893 (WA), s 58E |
Case References: | Afkos Industries Pty Ltd v Pullinger Stewart (a firm) [2001] WASCA 372 Bennett & Co v CLC Corporation (2001) 23 WAR 344 Clay v Karlson (1997) 17 WAR 493 Commissioner for Corporate Affairs v Harvey [1980] VR 669 Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd v Alvaro (Unreported, WASC, Library No 980310, 3 June 1998) Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 Lashansky v Legal Practice Board [2006] WASC 247 Lashansky v Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee [2002] WASCA 326 Lashansky v Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee [2005] WASCA 217 Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee v Lashansky [2007] WASC 211 Mansfield v Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) (2006) 226 CLR 486 McIntyre v Eastern Prosperity Investments Pte Ltd (No 4) [2002] FCA 1133 Michael v Freehill Hollingdale & Page (1990) 3 WAR 223 Naso v Danehill Nominees Pty Ltd [2006] WASC 265 Newman v Phillips Fox (a firm) (1999) 21 WAR 309 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CHAMBERS
- Applicant
AND
ROBERT JAMES LASHANSKY
Respondent
Catchwords:
Practitioners - Application to restrain firm from acting for opposing client - Allegations that firm possessed confidential information of the applicant, was in conflict between duties to clients and engaged in improper conduct - Evidentiary basis not established
Legislation:
Legal Practitioners Act 1893 (WA), s 58E
Result:
Application dismissed
(Page 2)
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr R J Davies QC & Mr M G M Porter
Respondent : In person
Solicitors:
Applicant : Minter Ellison
Respondent : In person
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Afkos Industries Pty Ltd v Pullinger Stewart (a firm) [2001] WASCA 372
Bennett & Co v CLC Corporation (2001) 23 WAR 344
Clay v Karlson (1997) 17 WAR 493
Commissioner for Corporate Affairs v Harvey [1980] VR 669
Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd v Alvaro (Unreported, WASC, Library No 980310, 3 June 1998)
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Lashansky v Legal Practice Board [2006] WASC 247
Lashansky v Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee [2002] WASCA 326
Lashansky v Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee [2005] WASCA 217
Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee v Lashansky [2007] WASC 211
Mansfield v Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) (2006) 226 CLR 486
McIntyre v Eastern Prosperity Investments Pte Ltd (No 4) [2002] FCA…
Continue reading Legal Practice Board v Lashansky
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Legal Practice Board v Lashansky [2008] WASC 294
- Case
- [2008] WASC 294
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In Legal Practice Board v Lashansky, the Legal Practice Board sought to restrain a law firm from acting for a client opposing the applicant, Lashansky, on the basis of alleged breaches of duty. The applicant claimed that the firm had possessed confidential information, was in conflict between duties to clients, and had engaged in improper conduct. The court was required to determine whether the Board had established a sufficient evidentiary basis to justify the restraint.
The court examined the legal issues regarding the Board's application to restrain the firm, focusing on whether the allegations were substantiated and whether the Board had discharged the onus of proof. The Board had to demonstrate that the law firm's actions constituted a breach of the practitioner's duties, including the duty to avoid conflicts of interest, maintain confidentiality, and act with integrity. The court considered the evidence presented and the legal standards applicable to such applications. Ultimately, the court found that the Board had not established the necessary evidentiary basis to justify the restraint on the firm's activities.
The court dismissed the Board's application, concluding that the applicant had not met the required standard of proof. The judge emphasised that the Board's allegations needed to be supported by clear and convincing evidence, which was lacking in this case. The court also noted the importance of preserving the right to be represented by one's chosen legal practitioner, subject to the practitioner's adherence to professional standards. The dismissal reflected the court's assessment that the Board's application was not supported by sufficient evidence to warrant the restraint on the law firm's activities.
The court examined the legal issues regarding the Board's application to restrain the firm, focusing on whether the allegations were substantiated and whether the Board had discharged the onus of proof. The Board had to demonstrate that the law firm's actions constituted a breach of the practitioner's duties, including the duty to avoid conflicts of interest, maintain confidentiality, and act with integrity. The court considered the evidence presented and the legal standards applicable to such applications. Ultimately, the court found that the Board had not established the necessary evidentiary basis to justify the restraint on the firm's activities.
The court dismissed the Board's application, concluding that the applicant had not met the required standard of proof. The judge emphasised that the Board's allegations needed to be supported by clear and convincing evidence, which was lacking in this case. The court also noted the importance of preserving the right to be represented by one's chosen legal practitioner, subject to the practitioner's adherence to professional standards. The dismissal reflected the court's assessment that the Board's application was not supported by sufficient evidence to warrant the restraint on the law firm's activities.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application dismissed
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.