FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| OSFERATU & OSFERATU | [2015] FamCAFC 177 |
| FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – Where the trial judge made orders restraining the husband’s solicitors from continuing to act for him – Where a solicitor of the firm representing the husband previously worked for the firm representing the wife – Where the solicitor in question had no dealings with the wife during his previous employment – Where the solicitors of the husband provided an undertaking to establish and maintain effective information barriers – Whether the wife waived her objection to the husband’s solicitors continuing to act for him – Whether the wife had disclosed confidential information to the solicitor in question during his previous employment – Whether there was a real risk of disclosure of any confidential information – Where the trial judge failed to identify any confidential information conveyed by the wife to her solicitors and failed to consider whether any asserted belief as to the misuse of that information was “reasonable” – Where the trial judge failed to take into account the wife’s previous waiver of her objection and the existing information barriers in the husband’s firm – Appeal allowed. FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Leave to – Whether leave to appeal is required from an order restraining a solicitor from acting in proceedings – Where an order restraining a solicitor from acting is a final order – Leave not required. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 94AA Family Law Regulations 1984 (Cth) reg 15A |
| Asia Pacific Telecommunications Ltd v Optus Networks Pty Limited [2007] NSWSC 350 Billington & Billington (No 2) [2008] FamCA 409 Carr and Anor v Finance Corporation of Australia Limited (1981) 147 CLR 246 Drover & Glasson and Anor [2014] FamCA 714 Hall v Nominal Defendant (1966) 117 CLR 423 Kallinicos v Hunt [2005] NSWSC 1181 Licul v Corney (1976) 180 CLR 213 Mancini v Mancini [1999] NSWSC 800 McMillan and McMillan (2000) FLC 93-048 PhotoCure ASA v Queen’s University at Kingston [2002] FCA 905 Prince Jeffri Bolkiah v KPMG (A Firm) [1999] 2 AC 222 Stewart & Stewart (unreported, Family Court of Australia, Lindenmayer J, 17 April 1997) Thevenaz v Thevenaz (1986) FLC 91-748 Volker and Anor & Dunwell and Anor (2013) FLC 93-558 |
| APPELLANT: | Mr Osferatu |
| RESPONDENT: | Ms Osferatu |
| FILE NUMBER: | SYC | 2318 | of | 2011 |
| APPEAL NUMBER: | EA | 96 | of | 2015 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 15 September 2015 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Sydney |
| PLACE HEARD: | Sydney |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Finn, Ainslie-Wallace & Aldridge JJ |
| HEARING DATE: | 27 July 2015 |
| LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: | Family Court of Australia |
| LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: | 12 June 2015 |
| LOWER COURT MNC: | [2015] FamCA 441 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT: | Mr Kearney SC |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT: | York Law |
| COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Mr Gould |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Watts McCray |
Orders
The appeal is allowed.
Paragraph 1 of the Orders made by the Honourable Justice Foster on 12 June 2015 is discharged.
The Court notes the undertakings given to the Court by Mr…
Continue reading Osferatu & Osferatu
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Osferatu & Osferatu [2015] FamCAFC 177
- Case
- [2015] FamCAFC 177
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether the wife had waived her objection to the husband’s solicitors continuing to act for him, whether there was a real risk of confidential information being disclosed, and if the trial judge had correctly applied the relevant legal principles. The court examined whether the wife had disclosed confidential information to the solicitor in question during his previous employment and if there was a real risk of this information being disclosed. Additionally, the court assessed whether the trial judge had correctly considered the wife’s previous waiver of her objection and the existing information barriers in the husband’s firm. The court held that the trial judge had not adequately identified any confidential information conveyed by the wife to her solicitors and had failed to consider whether any asserted belief as to the misuse of that information was “reasonable.” The court further found that the trial judge had not taken into account the wife’s previous waiver of her objection and the existing information barriers in the husband’s firm.
The court allowed the appeal, discharging the order that restrained the husband’s solicitors from continuing to act. The court noted the undertakings given by the solicitors involved to establish and maintain effective information barriers. Consequently, the appeal was successful, and the original orders were discharged. The court also dismissed certain paragraphs of an application in a case and ordered the respondent to pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal. This decision highlights the importance of properly considering all relevant factors and undertakings when making orders concerning the conduct of legal practitioners in family law proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The appeal is allowed.
2.
Paragraph 1 of the Orders made by the Honourable Justice Foster on 12 June 2015 is discharged.
3.
The Court notes the undertakings given to the Court by Mr F on 12 May 2014, Ms V given on 27 May 2015, Mr W given on 27 May 2015 and Ms Q given on 26 May 2015 and, on that basis, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Application in a Case filed 12 May 2015 are dismissed.
4.
The Respondent is to pay the Appellant’s costs of this appeal as agreed or in default of agreement as assessed. The costs are to be paid within 28 days of agreement or assessment.
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.