Naczek & Dowler

The appeal before the court involved a husband who sought to restrain his wife's solicitors from representing her in the appeal proceedings. The husband alleged a conflict of interest, specifically that the wife's solicitors held a lien over a cost order that was under appeal. Additionally, the wife was deemed impecunious, meaning she had insufficient funds to pay her own legal fees. The court was tasked with determining whether the existence of this lien over the unpaid legal fees created a conflict of interest sufficient to disqualify the solicitors from acting for the wife.

The court considered the nature of the conflict of interest as raised by the husband. It concluded that the mere existence of a lien over the unpaid fees for legal services did not, in itself, create a conflict of interest that would necessitate the disqualification of the wife's solicitors. The court examined the procedural aspect of the husband's application for an interlocutory order in the appeal context, especially since the substantive appeals were discontinued and never proceeded to a hearing, yet the reasons for judgment were still published.

The husband's application to restrain the wife's solicitors was dismissed by the court. The court ruled that the lien over the unpaid fees did not constitute a disqualifying conflict of interest. Additionally, the court mandated that any party seeking an order for costs must file and serve their submissions on costs within 14 days of the publication of the Full Court's reasons for judgment. The responding party was also required to file and serve submissions in response within 14 days of being served with submissions in support of a costs application.