National Australia Bank v Sayed (No. 10)

National Australia Bank sought to restrain its solicitors from acting on the basis of alleged conflicts of interest and to set aside a judgment that client legal privilege had not been waived by the solicitors. The application was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central issues before the court were whether the solicitors were in a position of conflict and if the integrity of the judicial process had been impaired, as well as whether the solicitors had waived client legal privilege. The bank argued that the solicitors had an improper interest in justifying their conduct and might have an indirect pecuniary interest in the outcome of the proceedings. It was also sought to unrepresented party leave to issue a subpoena to the solicitors for documents already subject to Notices to Produce.

The court found that there was no evidence to suggest that the solicitors had acted negligently or unlawfully, and that there was no risk that they would breach the confidences of the defendant. The court also noted that the bank itself did not perceive any conflict of interest and that there were no exceptional circumstances in which the solicitors owed a duty of care to another party. As for the waiver of client legal privilege, the court found that there was no evidence of a material change in circumstances or discovery of new material subsequent to the hearing of the original application. The diary notes kept by the solicitor for the bank were also found to be subject to client legal privilege under the Evidence Act. Finally, the court refused to grant leave to the unrepresented party to issue a subpoena to the solicitors for documents already subject to Notices to Produce, noting that four such notices had already been issued and that non-compliance or incomplete compliance had been alleged.