SHEEHAN & SHEEHAN

In the Family Court of Australia, Judge A Kelly considered an application by the applicant to restrain the respondent's solicitor from continuing to act in family law proceedings. The dispute arose from storm damage to the respondent's home, necessitating alternative accommodation. The applicant bore the costs of this accommodation. The respondent's solicitor acted for her in a claim against her home insurer. An offer from the insurer limited indemnity for alternative accommodation to four weeks. The applicant was not informed of this limitation, despite continuing to fund accommodation for an extended period. The respondent subsequently settled her insurance claim for a sum insufficient to reimburse the applicant for these costs, and part of the settlement monies were applied by the respondent to her legal costs.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the respondent's solicitor should be restrained from acting, based on principles relating to conflicts of interest, the threatened disclosure of confidential information, and the court's supervisory jurisdiction over officers of the court. The applicant contended that communications with the insurer had not been sufficiently disclosed, despite repeated requests.

The court applied the established principles governing applications for injunctions to restrain solicitors from acting. It considered the potential for conflict of interest and the duty to protect confidential information. After reviewing the evidence and submissions, the court determined that the threshold for granting such an injunction had not been met.

Consequently, the application to restrain the respondent's solicitor was dismissed. The applicant's costs of the application were reserved. The court also issued case management orders, including directions for the exchange of financial information and listing the property adjustment proceedings for hearing before Judge Blake on 28 October 2019.