Parin v Q Group WA Pty Ltd - [2025] WASC 346

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION:   PARIN -v- Q GROUP WA PTY LTD [2025] WASC 346
CORAM:   HOWARD J
HEARD:   21 AUGUST 2025
DELIVERED          :   21 AUGUST 2025
PUBLISHED           :   26 AUGUST 2025
FILE NO/S:   CIV 2073 of 2018
BETWEEN:   DAVID VICTOR PARIN
First Plaintiff
AND
EDGE INVESTMENTS (WA) PTY LTD
Second Plaintiff
AND
Q GROUP WA PTY LTD
First Defendant
AND
MAREMA NOMINEES PTY LTD
Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application to restrain the first defendant from instructing its solicitors - Where the plaintiffs assert that the solicitors for the first defendant have an interest in the outcome of the matter - Application dismissed

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff	:	A Rumsley
Second Plaintiff	:	A Rumsley
First Defendant	:	C Horwood
Second Defendant	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff	:	Alan Rumsley
Second Plaintiff	:	Alan Rumsley
First Defendant	:	Jacobson & Associates
Second Defendant	:	No appearance

Cases referred to in decision(s):

Afkos Industries Pty Ltd v Pullinger Stewart (A Firm) [2001] WASCA 372
Dimension Agriculture Pty Ltd v Nicoletti [2025] WASCA 287
Edge Investments WA Pty Ltd v Q Group WA Pty Ltd [2024] WASAT 9
Edge Investments WA Pty Ltd v Q Group WA Pty Ltd [2024] WASAT 9 (S)
Finch v The Heat Group Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2016] FCA 791; (2016) 353 ALR 193
Ismail-Zai v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 150; (2007) 34 WAR 379
Sheraz Pty Ltd v Vegas Enterprises Pty Ltd [2015] WASCA 4; (2015) 48 WAR 93
Thorpe v Lochel [2005] WASCA 85; (2005) 31 WAR 500
Tottle Christensen v Westgold Resources NL [2003] WASCA 224

HOWARD J:

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 21 August 2025 and has been lightly edited from the transcript).

By a Summons filed 25 June 2025, the plaintiff seeks an injunction restraining Jacobson & Associates from acting as lawyers for the first defendant, Q Group (WA) Pty Ltd (Q Group), in these proceedings.
For the purposes of today, it appears to be common ground that:
1.the plaintiffs entered into a lump sum building contract with Q Group in September 2017;
2.by May 2018, the parties were in dispute; and
3.the contract was terminated in June 2018.
These proceedings were commenced by writ issued 25 June 2018, and the statement of claim was filed on 9 September 2018.
Q Group was initially represented by another firm of solicitors.
On 24 April 2020, Jacobson & Associates filed a notice of change of representation in these proceedings and gave notice that they were representing Q Group. That remains the case.
Related proceedings were commenced by the plaintiffs, it appears, in early 2022 by lodging a complaint with the Building Commissioner, pursuant to the Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA).
That complaint was referred to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) and:
1.became the subject of proceedings in the SAT, being matter…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Parin v Q Group WA Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] WASC 346
Decision Date: 26 AUGUST 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Parin v Q Group WA Pty Ltd involved the plaintiffs seeking to restrain the first defendant from instructing its solicitors. The plaintiffs claimed that the solicitors had an interest in the outcome of the matter. This application was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the plaintiffs had provided sufficient grounds to warrant the restraint of the first defendant's ability to instruct its solicitors. The plaintiffs argued that the solicitors had a conflict of interest which would compromise the fairness of the proceedings. However, the court was tasked with evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence presented and determining whether such a restraint was necessary or appropriate.

The court meticulously examined the evidence provided by the plaintiffs and assessed whether it substantiated the claim of a conflict of interest. It was noted that the plaintiffs had not provided any concrete evidence to support their assertion that the solicitors had an interest in the outcome of the matter. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that applications to restrain parties from instructing solicitors were not made lightly and required compelling evidence. Ultimately, the court found that the plaintiffs had not met the requisite standard to justify the restraint. The court concluded that without clear and convincing evidence of a conflict of interest, the application should be dismissed.

Given the findings, the court dismissed the application to restrain the first defendant from instructing its solicitors. The reasoning was grounded in the principle that such applications should not be used as a tool to impede the progress of a case without substantial evidence to support the claim. The plaintiffs' lack of concrete evidence meant that the court could not find a basis for imposing a restraint. This decision highlights the importance of ensuring that any application to restrain a party from instructing solicitors is well-founded and supported by appropriate evidence. The dismissal of the application underscores the necessity for a high threshold in such matters to maintain the integrity and efficiency of the judicial process.

Orders