Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Lin v Zhou [2023] NSWSC 886 Hearing dates: 20 July 2023 Date of orders: 31 July 2023 Decision date: 31 July 2023 Jurisdiction: Equity Before: Henry J Decision: (1) Dismiss the Amended Summons filed on 20 July 2023.
(2) Unless a party makes an application for a different costs order within 14 days, the plaintiffs are to pay the defendants’ costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis as agreed or assessed.
Catchwords: OCCUPATIONS — legal practitioners — solicitors — whether solicitors should be restrained from acting for plaintiffs’ former clients in proceedings in the District Court of New South Wales concerning the provision of migration and visa services — where solicitors had acted for and had dealings with first plaintiff — where no existing retainer between solicitors and plaintiffs — where first plaintiff advised that solicitors could not act for him and he should seek separate legal representation — whether plaintiffs disclosed confidential information to solicitors — where no solicitor-client relationship or expectation of confidentiality existed at relevant times — where information not confidential — solicitors not restrained
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Edgecliff Car Rentals Pty Ltd (deregistered) [2017] NSWSC 244
Kallinicos v Hunt (2005) 64 NSWLR 561; [2005] NSWSC 1181
Macquarie Bank Ltd v Myer [1994] 1 VR 350
Mumbin v Northern Territory of Australia (No 1) [2020] FCA 475
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Shao Hua Lin (First Plaintiff)
Auslink Professional Group Pty Ltd (Second Plaintiff)
Ying Zhang (Third Plaintiff)
Ren Zhou (First Defendant)
Ren Zhou Group Pty Ltd trading as Ren Zhou Lawyers (Second Defendant)
Xin Sun (Third Defendant)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
A Hopkins (Defendants)
Westlink Legal Pty Ltd (Plaintiffs)
Ren Zhou Lawyers (Defendants)
File Number(s): 2023/00196730 Publication restriction: Nil
JUDGMENT
-
By Summons filed on 20 June 2023 as amended on 20 July 2023, the plaintiffs, Shao Hua Lin, Auslink Professional Group Pty Ltd (Auslink) and Ying Zhang, seek an order that the defendants, Ren Zhou, Ren Zhou Group Pty Ltd trading as Ren Zhou Lawyers (Ren Zhou Lawyers) and Xin Sun, be restrained from acting for the plaintiffs in proceedings in the District Court of New South Wales, 2022/00304069 (District Court Proceedings).
-
The plaintiffs in these proceedings are the defendants in the District Court Proceedings. Xinyi Xia and Xiao Liu are the plaintiffs in the District Court Proceedings.
-
The first defendant, Mr Zhou, is the principal solicitor of the second defendant, Ren Zhou Lawyers, an incorporated legal practice, and is the solicitor on the record for the plaintiffs in the District Court Proceedings. The third defendant, Mr Sun, is a solicitor and migration agent employed by Ren Zhou Lawyers. He acted for Ms Xia and Mr Liu in circumstances described below.
-
For convenience, in these reasons, I refer to: Mr Lin, Auslink and Ms Zhang together as…
Continue reading Lin v Zhou
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Lin v Zhou [2023] NSWSC 886
- Case
- [2023] NSWSC 886
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the relationship between the plaintiffs and the solicitors, and found that there was no existing retainer between the solicitors and the plaintiffs. The first plaintiff had advised that the solicitors could not act for him and that he should seek separate legal representation. The court also considered whether the plaintiffs had disclosed confidential information to the solicitors, and found that no solicitor-client relationship or expectation of confidentiality existed at the relevant times, and that the information was not confidential. The court concluded that there were no grounds to restrain the solicitors from acting for the plaintiffs' former clients in the proceedings in the District Court.
The court further found that the plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief was premature, as the plaintiffs had not yet commenced the proceedings in the District Court, and that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that they were likely to succeed in those proceedings. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' application for injunctive relief and for an order restraining the defendants, including the solicitors, from acting for the plaintiffs' former clients in the proceedings in the District Court. The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendants' costs of the application.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.