Thornton and Peach

In this matter before Judge Neville, the husband sought to restrain the wife's solicitors from continuing to act for her. The dispute concerned allegations that the solicitors held confidential information from the husband, acquired when the firm previously acted for both parties.

The court was required to determine whether the wife's solicitors should be restrained from acting for her, considering the potential risk of prejudice to the husband due to the prior joint representation. This involved balancing the husband's right to protection of confidential information against the wife's right to choose her legal representation and the practical implications of requiring her to find new solicitors.

Judge Neville dismissed the application to restrain the wife's solicitors. The reasoning applied drew upon established authorities, including *McMillan and McMillan* and *Thevenaz v Thevenaz*, which emphasise the importance of protecting client confidences and ensuring justice not only appears to be done but is seen to be done. However, the court also considered the principles from *Billington & Billington* and *Prince Jefri Bolkiah v KPMG*, which highlight the need for caution in granting such relief and the public interest in a litigant not being deprived of their chosen lawyer without due cause. The court acknowledged the significant cost and inconvenience to the wife if new solicitors were required.

The court made several interim orders. The application to restrain the solicitors was dismissed, with the husband to pay the wife's costs for that application. Funds were ordered to be released from the solicitors' trust account to the wife for litigation costs and for other purposes to be determined later, with a smaller sum released to the husband. The wife's application for spousal maintenance was refused on an interim basis, but she was granted leave to renew it. The husband was ordered to provide full and frank disclosure within 28 days, failing which the wife could bring the matter back to court. The parties were directed to attend private mediation, and the matter was adjourned for further mention.