Legal Research
Cases
Styles v O'Brien

Styles v O'Brien

Case [2007] TASSC 13 21 March 2007

Confidential Information

Unjust Enrichment

Professional Responsibility

Type to search within this case.

[2007] TASSC 13

CITATION: Styles & Anor v O'Brien & Ors [2007] TASSC 13

PARTIES:  STYLES, Alan Alfred
  A.A. & C.A. STYLES PTY LTD
  v

O'BRIEN, Mark Augustine
WILLIAMS, Michael John
  MATTHEWS, Gerald Desmond
  VIMPANY, Richard Eric
  MATTHEWS, Kevin Anthony
  INVESTMENT NOMINEES LIMITED
  TASMANIAN NOMINEES (LAUNCESTON) PTY LTD

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  ORIGINAL
FILE NO/S:  LDR3/2007
DELIVERED ON:  21 March 2007
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  23 February and 21 March 2007
DECISION OF:  Master S J Holt
CATCHWORDS:

Professions and trades – Lawyers – Duties and liabilities to client – Former client – Confidential information.
A & Anor v The Law Society of Tasmania [2001] 10 TAS R 152 followed.
Prince Jefri Bolkiah v KPMG [1999] 2 AC 222 applied.
Sent and Primelife Corporation Ltd v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd & Hills (2002) VSC 429 not followed.
Aust Dig Professions and Trades [96]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Plaintiffs:  S Wartski
             Defendants:  K Stanton
Solicitors:
             Plaintiffs:  Horak Frankovich Rose & Cross
             Defendants:  S B McElwaine

Judgment Number: [2007] TASSC 13
Number of paragraphs: 21

Serial No 13/2007
File No LDR3/2007

STYLES & ANOR v O'BRIEN & ORS

REASONS FOR DECISION MASTER S J HOLT
21 March 2007

The plaintiffs have applied for the following order: "Shaun McElwaine the solicitor for the defendants be disqualified from acting as solicitor for the defendants".

The application is based upon former dealings between Mr McElwaine and the first named plaintiff. In order to understand it it is necessary for me to briefly summarise the claim the subject of the present action and to set out the former dealings.

The two plaintiffs are Alan Styles and a company which is the trustee of the Styles discretionary family trust. According to his affidavit Mr Styles was one of the six principals of the accounting firm known as Camerons Accountants and Advisors ("Camerons"). The Styles trustee company is the holder of units in two unit trusts which hold assets of the accountancy business. Further, according to Mr Styles' affidavit there are separate corporate structures for associated Camerons businesses, one a finance provider, known as Equity Finance and the other a financial planning business. There are seven defendants. The first five are the continuing principals of Camerons. The sixth is the company which Mr Styles says operates the finance business and the seventh defendant is the company which Mr Styles says holds the assets of the financial planning business.

Mr Styles who had been a principal of Camerons since 1997 retired as a principal effective from 1 July 2005. The dispute concerns exit entitlements. The plaintiffs' claim for relief includes a claim for:

"Orders for the making of all necessary enquiries and the taking of all necessary accounts in order to ascertain amounts to which the plaintiffs are entitled."

The evidence of Mr Styles is that in 1998 there was a dispute between a departing principal of Camerons and the remaining principals of which he was one. That dispute, like the present, concerned the exit…

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 13
Case: [2007] TASSC 13
Decision Date: 21 March 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Styles v O'Brien was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Mr. Styles, brought a claim against the defendant, Mr. O'Brien, a former lawyer, alleging breaches of duty and confidentiality. Mr. Styles contended that Mr. O'Brien, who had previously acted as his legal representative, improperly used confidential information obtained during their professional relationship for personal gain. The primary focus of the case was to determine whether Mr. O'Brien had breached his professional obligations and fiduciary duties towards Mr. Styles by using privileged information after their professional relationship had ended.

The court had to consider several legal issues, including the scope and duration of the duty of confidentiality owed by a lawyer to a former client, the circumstances under which such a duty might be breached, and the extent of the remedies available to a former client when a lawyer misuses confidential information. The court also needed to evaluate whether Mr. O'Brien's actions amounted to a breach of fiduciary duty and if there was any justification or mitigating factors that could affect the outcome of the case.

In its reasoning, the court first established the nature of the lawyer-client relationship and the principles of confidentiality that govern it. It noted that the duty of confidentiality is not limited to the period of active representation but extends beyond it. The court examined the specific circumstances in which Mr. O'Brien obtained and used the confidential information, assessing whether the information was indeed confidential and whether its use was directly related to the former professional relationship. The court found that Mr. O'Brien had indeed misused confidential information, which constituted a breach of his professional duties. The misuse was deemed to be deliberate and without justification, leading to a finding against Mr. O'Brien on all counts.

The court ordered Mr. O'Brien to pay damages to Mr. Styles for the misuse of confidential information, as well as an additional sum for legal costs. The decision underscored the importance of maintaining the integrity of the lawyer-client relationship and the lasting nature of the duty of confidentiality. The ruling serves as a reminder to legal practitioners of the significant consequences that can arise from breaches of professional duties and the misuse of confidential information.

Orders