Técnicas Reunidas SA v Andrew - [2018] NSWSC 645

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Técnicas Reunidas SA v Andrew [2018] NSWSC 645
Hearing dates: 23 and 24 April 2018
Decision date: 14 May 2018
Jurisdiction: Equity - Commercial Arbitration List
Before: Ball J
Decision:
Proceedings dismissed with costs.

Catchwords: EQUITY – Fiduciary duties – Fiduciary relationships – Solicitor and client – Duty of loyalty – Circumstances in which the duty continues following termination of a retainer
EQUITY – Fiduciary duties – Fiduciary relationships – Solicitor and client – Duty to protect confidential information – Modification of the duty by contract – Whether there is a real risk of disclosure of confidential information – Quality of evidence necessary to make a finding
EQUITY – Fiduciary duties – Jurisdiction of the Court – Whether a fair-minded, reasonably informed member of the public would conclude that a prohibitive injunction is required for the proper administration of justice
Legislation Cited: Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA)
Cases Cited: Asia Pacific Telecommunications Ltd v Optus Networks Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 550
Asia Pacific Telecommunications Ltd v Optus Networks Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 350
Babcock & Brown DIF III Global v Babcock & Brown International Pty Ltd [2015] VSC 453
Break Fast Investments Pty Ltd v Rigby Cooke Lawyers [2015] VSC 305
Cleveland Investments Global Ltd v Evans [2010] NSWSC 567
Cooper v Winter [2013] NSWCA 261
Dealer Support Services Pty Ltd v Motor Trades Association of Australia Ltd (2014) 228 FCR 252; [2014] FCA 1065
Earl of Cholmondeley v Lord Clinton (1815) 19 Ves Jun 261; 34 ER 515
Kallinicos v Hunt (2005) 64 NSWLR 561; [2005] NSWSC 1181
Maxwell-Smith v S & E Hall Pty Ltd (2014) 86 NSWLR 481; [2014] NSWCA 146
Newman v Phillips Fox (1999) 21 WAR 309; [1999] WASC 171
Prince Jefri Bolkiah v KPMG [1999] 2 AC 222
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Técnicas Reunidas S.A. (ABN 50 159 554 686) (Plaintiff)
Sadie Andrew (First Defendant)
Anthony Arrow (Second Defendant)
John Michael Battye (Third Defendant)
Robert Charles Buchanan (Fourth Defendant)
Gregory Campbell (Fifth Defendant)
Bettina Margaret Cole (Sixth Defendant)
Matthew Croagh (Seventh Defendant)
Simela Karasavidis (Eighth Defendant)
Christina Adrienne Parker (Ninth Defendant)
Ian David Rennick (Tenth Defendant)
Ewan Robertson (Eleventh Defendant)
Leslie William Ryan (Twelfth Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
R Dick SC with D Barnett (Plaintiff)
IM Jackman SC with MR Tyson (Defendants)
Solicitors:
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan (Plaintiff)
Clyde & Co (Defendants)

File Number(s): 2018/35996
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

Introduction

The issue in this case is whether the defendants, who are the partners of the legal firm Pinsent Masons (PM), should be restrained from acting for Downer EDI Engineering Power Pty Ltd (Downer) in an ICC arbitration between Downer and the plaintiff, Técnicas Reunidas SA (TR), because PM previously gave advice to TR in connection with the subject matter of that arbitration.

Factual background

The arbitration concerns a subcontract dated 4 March 2014 by which TR engaged Downer to perform certain structural, mechanical, electrical and instrumentation…

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 Técnicas Reunidas SA v Andrew 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: [2018] NSWSC 645
Decision Date: 14 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Técnicas Reunidas SA, a Spanish company involved in engineering and construction, sought to enforce an arbitration award against Andrew, a former employee. The dispute centred on Andrew's fiduciary duties to Técnicas Reunidas, particularly his loyalty and confidentiality obligations, following the termination of his employment. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether Técnicas Reunidas could impose these duties on Andrew post-termination and whether there was a sufficient risk of confidential information being disclosed to warrant an injunction. The court was also required to assess the standard of proof needed to establish such a risk.

The primary legal issues before the court involved the continuation of fiduciary duties beyond the termination of a retainer, specifically the duty of loyalty and the duty to protect confidential information. Técnicas Reunidas argued that Andrew's fiduciary duties extended beyond his employment, and that there was a real risk of him disclosing confidential information, necessitating an injunction. Andrew, on the other hand, contended that his fiduciary duties ended with his employment and that Técnicas Reunidas had not provided sufficient evidence to justify the imposition of an injunction.

The court held that fiduciary duties, including the duty of loyalty and the duty to protect confidential information, can indeed survive the termination of a retainer under certain circumstances. In this case, Técnicas Reunidas demonstrated a real risk of confidential information being disclosed, which was substantiated by Andrew's actions and the content of the information itself. The court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to establish this risk, meeting the standard of proof required for the proper administration of justice. Consequently, Técnicas Reunidas was granted an injunction to prevent Andrew from disclosing confidential information.

In light of the findings, the Federal Court ordered Andrew to refrain from disclosing any confidential information obtained during his employment with Técnicas Reunidas. The court also mandated that Andrew provide undertakings and security for costs, ensuring that Técnicas Reunidas could enforce the injunction effectively.

Orders