Legal Research
Cases
Mohammad Alamin v Hamidul Islam

Mohammad Alamin v Hamidul Islam

Case [2025] NSWSC 221 17 March 2025

Legal Privilege

Confidential Information

Conflict of Interest

Ethics & Legal Profession

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Mohammad Alamin v Hamidul Islam [2025] NSWSC 221
Hearing dates: 14 March 2025
Date of orders: 17 March 2025
Decision date: 17 March 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity - Applications List
Before: Brereton J
Decision:
Motion dismissed with costs.

Catchwords:
LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – whether solicitor on record should be restrained from acting for the Defendants – whether solicitor in possession of confidential information regarding the Defendants – getting to know you factors – whether a fair-minded reasonably informed member of the public would regard the proper administration of justice to require the solicitor to be prevented from acting.

Legislation Cited:
n/a

Cases Cited:
Dealer Support Services Pty Limited v Motor Trades Association of Australia Limited (2014) 228 FCR 252
In the Matter of Edgecliff Car Rentals Pty Limited (Deregistered) [2017] NSWSC 244
Kallinicos v Hunt (2005) 64 NSWLR 561
Mumbin v Northern Territory of Australia (No 1) [2020] FCA 475
Porter v Dyer (2022) 402 ALR 659
Re Timbercorp Finance Ltd (in liq) and Others (2019) 137 ACSR 189
Sacca v El Saafin [2021] FCA 383
Sent v John Fairfax Publications Pty Limited [2002] VSC 429

Texts Cited:
n/a

Category: Consequential orders
Parties: Mohammad Alamin (Plaintiff)
Hamidul Islam (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
M R Elliott SC (Defendant)
No other appearances
Solicitors:
T Hall/D Accoto (Plaintiff)
McCabes (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2023/152391
Publication restriction: n/a

Judgment (amended from transcript)

HIS HONOUR: By Notice of Motion filed on 6 February 2025, the Plaintiff seeks an order restraining the Defendants from continuing to instruct the firm of solicitors known as McCabes of Sydney, or any legal practitioner that has been retained by that firm to act, or to appear, or to advise in these proceedings. The focus of the application concerns Mr Dewan, who has conducted these proceedings for the Defendants. However, the application extends to all of the Defendants’ legal representatives, including counsel.
The relevant background can be summarised briefly.
The Plaintiff, Mr Alamin, and Mr Dewan came to know each other in 2008. They became friends. They share a cultural and religious background.
Mr Alamin introduced Mr Dewan to the First Defendant, Mr Islam, in 2015. At the time, Mr Alamin and Mr Islam were business associates. They conducted business activities through companies in what has been called the MH Affordable Group. The business activities concerned the development of broad acre suburban property estates in Western Sydney.
As an employed solicitor, Mr Dewan acted as solicitor in various matters for companies in the MH Affordable Group prior to 2021. Mr Dewan was never the solicitor for Mr Alamin personally. He acted for various companies in circumstances where both Mr Alamin and Mr Islam were directors. He took instructions from them, although not always from them both at the same time.
The relationship between Mr Alamin and Mr Islam broke down in about the middle of 2021.
In 2021, Mr Islam sued Mr Alamin, alleging that Mr Alamin had made a secret profit and misapplied funds. Those proceedings…

Grounds of appeal

[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 Mohammad Alamin v Hamidul Islam

Details

AGLC: Mohammad Alamin v Hamidul Islam [2025] NSWSC 221
Case: [2025] NSWSC 221
Decision Date: 17 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Mohammad Alamin sought an injunction restraining Hamidul Islam and others from continuing in their roles as solicitors on record in a matter between the same parties. The applicant contended that Hamidul Islam, a solicitor in possession of confidential information, should not be allowed to act for the defendants due to potential conflicts of interest. The court was required to determine whether the solicitor should be restrained from acting for the defendants and whether there were any grounds to prevent the solicitor from doing so based on the possession of confidential information.

The court considered the "getting to know you" factors in assessing the risk of a conflict of interest. These factors included the nature of the information held by the solicitor, the extent to which the solicitor had become privy to confidential information, and the potential impact of the solicitor acting for the defendants. The court also evaluated whether a fair-minded reasonably informed member of the public would regard the proper administration of justice to require the solicitor to be prevented from acting. After weighing these considerations, the court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to warrant an injunction.

The court found that while the solicitor was in possession of confidential information, there was no concrete evidence of actual or potential conflict of interest that would justify restraining the solicitor from acting for the defendants. The court determined that the risk of a conflict of interest was speculative and did not meet the threshold for an injunction. Consequently, the application for an injunction was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the application for an injunction be dismissed, with no orders as to costs.

Orders