Legal Research
Cases
Styles v O'Brien

Styles v O'Brien

Case [2007] TASSC 67 29 August 2007

Duty of Loyalty

Professional Conduct

Inherent Jurisdiction

Public Policy

Professional Responsibility

Type to search within this case.

[2007] TASSC 67

CITATION: Styles v O'Brien [2007] TASSC 67

PARTIES: STYLES, Alan Alfred
A A & C A STYLES PTY LTD (ACN 009 526 587)

v
  O'BRIEN, Mark Augstine
  WILLIAMS, Michael John
  MATTHEWS, Gerald Desmond
  VIMPANY, Richard Eric
  MATTHEWS, Kevin Anthony
  INVESTMENT NOMINEES LIMITED (ACN 009 503 315)
  TASMANIAN NOMINEES (LAUNCESTON) PTY LTD     (ACN 009 494 580)

TITLE OF COURT:                   SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  LDR 3/2007
DELIVERED ON:  28 August 2007
DELIVERED AT:  Launceston
HEARING DATE:  7, 8 June 2007
JUDGMENT OF:  Crawford J
CATCHWORDS:

Profession and Trades – Lawyers – Duties and liabilities – Solicitor and client – Acting against former client – When a solicitor may be restrained – Whether duty of loyalty – Court's inherent jurisdiction – Public policy.

Styles v O'Brien [2007] TASSC 13, affirmed.
A v Law Society of Tasmania (2001) 10 Tas R 152; Prince Jefri Bolkiah v KPMG [1999] 2 AC 222, followed.
Spincode Pty Ltd v Look Software Pty Ltd (2001) 4 VR 501, not followed.
Kallinicos v Hunt [2005] NSWSC 1181, considered.
Aust Dig Professions and Trade [1156]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  S Wartski
             Respondent:  K J Stanton
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Horak Frankovich Rose & Cross
             Respondent:  S B McElwaine

Judgment Number: [2007] TASSC 67
Number of paragraphs: 33

Serial No 67/2007
File No LDR 3/2007

ALAN ALFRED STYLES and A A & C A STYLES PTY LTD (ACN 009 526 587)
v MARK AUGSTINE O'BRIEN, MICHAEL JOHN WILLIAMS, GERALD DESMOND MATTHEWS, RICHARD ERIC VIMPANY, KEVIN ANTHONY MATTHEWS, INVESTMENT NOMINEES LIMITED (ACN 009 503 315) and TASMANIAN NOMINEES (LAUNCESTON) PTY LTD (ACN 009 494 580)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT CRAWFORD J
28 August 2007

The appellants sued the respondents. In essence, the action amounted to a claim for whatever money might be due to the first appellant ("Mr Styles") following his resignation as a principal from the accounting firm known as Camerons Accountants and Advisors ("Camerons").

The action was commenced on 24 November 2006. The respondents instructed Mr S B McElwaine, a legal practitioner, to act for them. On 12 December 2006, he filed an application to strike out the statement of claim because it failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action and for other reasons. On 14 December 2006, he filed and delivered a defence, which merely denied everything in the statement of claim. I was informed from the bar table, without objection, that it should only be regarded as a holding defence and that it was provided in that form only because the appellants insisted on a defence within the prescribed time limit and were not prepared to wait for it until after the application to strike out the statement of claim was determined.

On 17 December 2006, the appellants' solicitors demanded of Mr McElwaine that he cease to act because he had "a very serious conflict of interest" and they threatened to report him to the Law Society if he did not undertake, by the following day, that he would do…

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.

Continue reading Styles v O'Brien

Details

AGLC: Styles v O'Brien [2007] TASSC 67
Case: [2007] TASSC 67
Decision Date: 29 August 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Styles v O'Brien, the respondent, a former client of the applicant, sought an injunction against the applicant, a solicitor, to restrain him from acting in a case against her. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The respondent alleged that the applicant had acted in a manner that was contrary to his duty of loyalty to her as his former client and that he was now acting against her in a matter that was in direct conflict with that duty. The applicant, on the other hand, argued that there was no conflict of interest and that he was entitled to act in the matter.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant was bound by a duty of loyalty to the respondent that would restrain him from acting against her in the current matter. The court also had to consider whether the duty of loyalty was a matter of public policy and whether the court had inherent jurisdiction to restrain the applicant from acting in the matter. The court considered whether the applicant's conduct was such that it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The court found that the applicant was indeed bound by a duty of loyalty to the respondent, which prevented him from acting against her in the current matter. The court held that the duty of loyalty was a matter of public policy and that the court had inherent jurisdiction to restrain the applicant from acting in the matter. The court found that the applicant's conduct did bring the administration of justice into disrepute, and therefore, granted the respondent's application for an injunction. The court emphasised that the duty of loyalty was not limited to situations where there was a conflict of interest but extended to situations where a solicitor's conduct was such that it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Orders