(1) Edgar Marcelo Robalino Rojas and Allsworth Lawyers Pty Ltd (ACN 634 825 808) t/as Allsworth Lawyers be restrained from acting as the legal representatives for the plaintiff in proceeding 2024/00288388.
(2) Subject to order (3), the costs of the Notice of Motion filed 17 June 2025 be costs in the cause.
(3) Within 7 days of the publication of this judgment, the parties may make an application by email to my Associate to vary order (2). Further orders will be made for the filing and serving of submissions by the parties in relation to any such application.
(4) Any further issue as to costs will be determined on the papers.
(5) The matter is listed before the Registrar in Equity for directions on 20 October 2025.
Catchwords:
OCCUPATIONS — Legal practitioners — Solicitors — Former client — Whether plaintiff’s solicitors should be restrained from acting for him in proceedings — Where respondents previously acted for the applicant in XXXXX proceedings — Where respondents came into confidential information concerning plaintiff’s mental health — Whether confidential information will be relevant in the proceedings in this Court — Whether there is a real risk the applicant’s confidential information will be misused
[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.
Continue reading Malovini v Abdishou
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Malovini v Abdishou [2025] NSWSC 1157
Case
[2025] NSWSC 1157
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Malovini v Abdishou involved a dispute between former client and former legal representatives. The applicant, Malovini, sought to restrain the respondent, Abdishou, and their law firm from acting for Malovini in proceedings that were ongoing in the Supreme Court. The basis of the application was that Abdishou and their firm had previously acted for Malovini in different proceedings, during which they obtained confidential information about Malovini's mental health. Malovini contended that this information was likely to be relevant in the current proceedings and there was a real risk that Abdishou and their firm would misuse this confidential information.
The central legal issue before the court was whether there were sufficient grounds to restrain Abdishou and their law firm from acting for Malovini, given the prior relationship and the sensitive nature of the information obtained. The court needed to determine whether the confidential information was likely to be relevant in the current proceedings and whether there was a real risk that it would be misused. This involved balancing the interests of Malovini in protecting his confidential information against the rights of Abdishou and their firm to represent clients in legal proceedings.
The court considered the principles of professional conduct and confidentiality applicable to legal practitioners. It found that the information obtained by Abdishou and their firm was indeed confidential and likely to be relevant to the current proceedings. The court was also satisfied that there was a real risk that the confidential information would be misused. Consequently, the court concluded that it was appropriate to restrain Abdishou and their firm from acting for Malovini in the proceedings before the Supreme Court. This decision was made to protect Malovini's interests and uphold the ethical standards expected of legal practitioners.
The final orders of the court were that Abdishou and their firm were restrained from acting for Malovini in the proceedings before the Supreme Court, with the specific details of the restraint outlined in the judgment. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining the confidentiality of client information and the ethical obligations of legal practitioners in this regard.