Legal Research
Cases
Sent v John Fairfax Publication Pty Ltd

Sent v John Fairfax Publication Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 7 October 2002 47 min read

Contents

On this page

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

No. 6926 of 2001

EDUARD CHRISTIAAN SENT and PRIMELIFE CORPORATION LTD	Plaintiffs
v
JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATION PTY LTD and BEN HILLS	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Nettle J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	6 and 7 October 2002
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	7 October 2002
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Sent and Primelife Corporation Ltd v John Fairfax Publication Pty Ltd and Hills
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSC 429

---

Legal practitioners – counsel – duty of confidence to former client – duty of loyalty – inherent jurisdiction of court to control counsel – application for order restraining continued retainer of counsel by party opposed to former client.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr S.K. Wilson QC with Mr G.L. Meehan	Russell Kennedy
For the Defendants	Mr M.F. Wheelahan	Freehills Lawyers

TABLE [L1]OF CONTENTS

THE PLEADINGS................................................................................................................................................................................. 2

THE FACTS............................................................................................................................................................................................ 5

THE APPLICATION......................................................................................................................................................................... 14

Possibility of disclosure of confidential information....................................................................................... 15

PRECISION OF DESCRIPTION................................................................................................................................................... 20

MATTERS IN ISSUE AT TRIAL................................................................................................................................................... 22

MR SHER’S RECOLLECTION..................................................................................................................................................... 25

CONCLUSIONS ON CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION..................................................................................................... 26

DUTY OF LOYALTY........................................................................................................................................................................ 27

PUBLIC POLICY................................................................................................................................................................................ 29

HIS HONOUR:

Plaintiffs’ application by summons dated 16 August 2002 for orders to restrain the defendants continuing to retain Mr Jeffrey Sher QC as their counsel for the remainder of this action.

The action, instituted by a writ filed on 27 July 2001, is for damages for defamation alleged to be the result of the publication in the Sydney Morning Herald of 26 July 2001, and also upon the Internet, of two articles respectively entitled "Dark Side of the Aged Care Czar" and "Trouble in Primelife paradise."

In the article entitled "Dark side of the Aged Care Czar" (which I will call the first article) the following was reported amongst other matters:

“Specifically, Eduard Christiaan Sent, to give him his full name, has been charged (though not convicted) on three occasions with serious criminal offences including fraud… His next grand venture also involved tax minimisation – this time using boats instead of planes. He built scallop-dredges which he sold to syndicates of high-income individuals such as doctors and lawyers and leased them back for fishing in Bass Strait.
This was supposed to return $100,000 plus a year, on top of the juicy tax benefits derived from ‘revenue trips’ just before the end of the financial year.
The venture became such a runaway success that a massive flotilla of 60 $500,000 boats was launched in just 18 months, prompting the then Primary Industries Minister, Mr. John Kerin, to warn in Parliament that Mr. Sent’s company, Allied Fisheries Limited, was ‘promoting the purchase by professional people of new scallop boats on the basis of exaggerated claims about the extent of our fisheries’ resources’.
But within two years that company had also capsized under massive debts, with Allied blaming everything from fleet breakdowns (the propeller fell off one boat) to poor catches during the El Nino weather effect. In 1984, the Tasmanian…

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 Sent v John Fairfax Publication 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: [2002] VSC 429
Decision Date: 7 October 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Sent v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd, the court was tasked with addressing the ethical and legal implications of a lawyer's dual representation of conflicting interests. The plaintiff, Sent, sought an order to prevent the defendant's counsel from continuing to represent another party in a matter that conflicted with Sent's interests. The case raised significant questions about the duties of confidentiality and loyalty owed by legal practitioners to their clients. The court was called upon to determine whether the inherent jurisdiction it possessed could be exercised to control counsel and prevent them from acting for opposing parties in a way that might compromise their ethical obligations.

The primary legal issues centred on the duties of confidence and loyalty that lawyers owe to their clients, particularly in the context of dual representation. The court had to examine whether the counsel's continued representation of the opposing party, who was a former client, constituted a breach of the duty of confidentiality or loyalty. The court also needed to assess whether it had the inherent jurisdiction to intervene and direct the counsel to cease representation of the opposing party to protect the interests of the current client. These issues required a careful balance between the ethical obligations of legal practitioners and the court's powers to regulate professional conduct.

The court concluded that the counsel's continued representation of the opposing party did indeed breach the duty of loyalty, as it created a clear conflict of interest. The court found that the inherent jurisdiction could be exercised to prevent such a conflict from occurring, thereby protecting the interests of the current client and upholding the integrity of the legal profession. The court determined that it was appropriate to grant the order sought by the plaintiff, which would restrain the counsel from continuing to represent the opposing party in the matter. This decision underscored the importance of maintaining the highest ethical standards in legal practice and the court's role in ensuring that these standards are upheld.

Orders