Tottle Christensen v Westgold Resources NL

Link copied
Case Copied 8 min read

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT :   THE FULL COURT (WA)

CITATION:   TOTTLE CHRISTENSEN -v- WESTGOLD RESOURCES NL [2003] WASCA 224

CORAM:   MALCOLM CJ

MURRAY J
ANDERSON J

HEARD:   13 MARCH 2003

DELIVERED          :   13 MARCH 2003

PUBLISHED           :  23 SEPTEMBER 2003

FILE NO/S:   FUL 169 of 2002

BETWEEN:   TOTTLE CHRISTENSEN

Appellant

AND

WESTGOLD RESOURCES NL
Respondent

Catchwords:

Legal practitioners - Application for order restraining solicitors from acting - Alleged conflict of duty and interest - Confidential documents lost without disclosure of contents - Inherent jurisdiction of Court - Grounds for exercise

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal allowed
Cross-appeal dismissed

Category:    A

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant:     Mr M J McCusker QC & Dr J J Edelman

Respondent:     Mr A N Siopis SC & Mr C A Ryder

Solicitors:

Appellant:     Tottle Christensen

Respondent:     Corrs Chambers Westgarth

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2001) 208 CLR 199

Grimwade v Meagher [1995] 1 VR 446

Case(s) also cited:

Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers (No 2) [1990] 1 AC 109

Black v Taylor [1993] 3 NZLR 403

Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Herbert Smith & Co (No 2) [1969] 2 Ch 276

Clay v Karlson (1997) 17 WAR 493

Fountain Selected Meat (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Ltd (1988) 81 ALR 397

G v Day [1982] 1 NSWLR 24

Geveran Trading Co Ltd v Skjevesland [2002] 1 All Er 1

Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corp (1984) 156 CLR 41

Islam v Duncan [2000] NTCA 3, 134 NTR 12

Kooky Garments Ltd v Charlton [1994] 1 NZLR 587

Martin v Gray [1990] 3 SCR 1235

Moorgate Tobacco Co Ltd v Phillip Morris Ltd (No 2) (1984) 156 CLR 414

NMFM Property Pty Ltd v Citibank (No 11) (2001) 109 FCR 77

Pilmer v The Duke Group Ltd (2001) 207 CLR 165

Schering Chemicals Ltd v Falkman Ltd [1982] QB 1

Speed Seal Products Ltd v Paddington [1985] 1 WLR 1327

Spincode Pty Ltd v Look Software Pty Ltd [2002] 4 VR 501

State of Western Australia v Ward on behalf of Miriuwung Gajerrong Peoples (1997) 76 FCR 492

Westgold Resources NL v St Barbara Mines NL [2003] WASC 29

  1. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:    This was an appeal against an injunction which restrained the appellant from acting for a defendant, St Barbara Mines Ltd (St Barbara), in an action brought by the respondent (Westgold).  The injunction was issued until further order, with liberty to apply to vary or discharge the injunction.  Such an application was made to the Judge who made the original order.  His Honour discharged the injunction on the basis that the grounds for the grant of the injunction were no longer operative.  However, that order was stayed, pending the determination of the appeal against the grant of the injunction. 

  2. On the hearing, the appeal was allowed, a cross-appeal dismissed, the respondent's application for the injunction was dismissed and the injunction was discharged.  We made an order that the…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Tottle Christensen v Westgold Resources NL 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
[2003] WASCA 224
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Tottle Christensen v Westgold Resources NL involved an appeal against an injunction that had been issued by the court, restraining the appellant from acting for the defendant, St Barbara Mines Ltd, in an action brought by the respondent, Westgold. The injunction was sought on the basis that a partner from the appellant's firm, Mr. Blackman, had received confidential information and privileged communications from Westgold, which could create a conflict of interest. This conflict would prevent the appellant from effectively representing St Barbara, whose interests were adverse to Westgold in the litigation.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide included the inherent jurisdiction of the court to control the conduct of legal practitioners and the parameters of this jurisdiction, particularly in cases involving potential conflicts of interest. The court also needed to assess whether the grounds for the injunction were still operative and whether the inherent jurisdiction of the court should be exercised in this instance. The case raised questions about the limitations and scope of the court's power to issue such injunctions and the criteria that should be applied to determine when such an order is justified.

The court concluded that the inherent jurisdiction of the court to control the conduct of legal practitioners exists to ensure the integrity and fairness of the judicial process. The court held that this jurisdiction encompasses situations where there is a real risk of conflict of interest between a duty owed to the client and a duty to some other interest in the litigation. The court further determined that the test for determining whether to exercise this jurisdiction is objective, viewing the matter from the perspective of a fair-minded, reasonably well-informed, disinterested bystander. The court found that the facts presented did not justify the exercise of this jurisdiction in the present case, as the grounds for the injunction were no longer operative. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the injunction was discharged, and the respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

MURRAY J
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: This was an appeal against an injunction which restrained the appellant from acting for a defendant, St Barbara Mines Ltd (St Barbara), in an action brought by the respondent (Westgold). The injunction was issued until further order, with liberty to apply to vary or discharge the injunction. Such an application was made to the Judge who made the original order. His Honour discharged the injunction on the basis that the grounds for the grant of the injunction were no longer operative. However, that order was stayed, pending the determination of the appeal against the grant of the injunction. On the hearing, the appeal was allowed, a cross-appeal dismissed, the respondent's application for the injunction was dismissed and the injunction was discharged. We made an order that the respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal and reserved, to be dealt with on written submissions, the making of any special orders as to costs. Such submissions were provided and these are our reasons for the substantive orders made on the hearing of the appeal and finally in relation to the question of costs. The application for the injunction was grounded upon the proposition that a Mr Blackman, a partner in the appellant firm, had received information and privileged communications confidential to Westgold, an occurrence which ought to prevent the appellant from acting for St Barbara, whose interests in the litigation were adverse to Westgold. The conflict of duty and interest potentially inherent in that situation is obvious. The application was brought in the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to control the conduct of members of the legal profession in their role as officers of the court, to ensure the preservation of public confidence in the integrity and fairness of the administration of justice. Such a jurisdiction clearly exists. Counsel for the parties before us made no contrary submission, although they hotly debated the parameters of the jurisdiction. In our opinion, there can sensibly be no closed list of circumstances which will justify the exercise of what, on any view, must be regarded as an exceptional jurisdiction and power. Ordinarily, litigants are entitled to solicitors and counsel of their choice and it is only in a clear case that the Court would make an order which would interfere with that right. On the other hand, it seems to us that the power is not so limited as the appellant suggested, when Senior Counsel submitted that Westgold's application would fail once it was appreciated that the Court had no power to grant an interlocutory injunction, except in protection or assertion of some legal or equitable right which the Court had jurisdiction to vindicate by a final judgment: Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2001) 208 CLR 199. That case was concerned with an effort by a litigant to obtain interlocutory relief beyond the relief which might be obtained by the litigant by way of final judgment. The order made in this case was clearly not an interlocutory order of that character.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: MURRAY J

On the other hand, it seems to us that the power is not so limited as the appellant suggested, when Senior Counsel submitted that Westgold's application would fail once it was appreciated that the Court had no power to grant an interlocutory injunction, except in protection or assertion of some legal or equitable right which the Court had jurisdiction to vindicate by a final judgment: Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2001) 208 CLR 199. That case was concerned with an effort by a litigant to obtain interlocutory relief beyond the relief which might be obtained by the litigant by way of final judgment. The order made in this case was clearly not an interlocutory order of that character. Whatever might be the ambit of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court, in our opinion it must encompass those cases where the representation of a litigant by solicitor and/or counsel may be seen objectively to involve a real risk of actual or apparent conflict of interest – the risk of conflict between a duty owed to the client of the solicitor or counsel and a duty owed to some other interest to be served in the litigation. Alternatively, there must, we think, viewed objectively, be seen to be a real need for an order preventing a solicitor or counsel from acting to imperil the due administration of justice and to protect the integrity of the judicial process. In both respects, the test adopted by the Court will, we think, be an objective one – the matter will be viewed from the perspective of a fair-minded, reasonably well-informed, disinterested bystander. It is unnecessary for present purposes to refer to the authorities, most of which simply present examples of the exercise of the jurisdiction in particular factual circumstances. We were attracted to the general formulation of the nature of the jurisdiction, in line with what we have written, by Mandie J in Grimwade v Meagher [1995] 1 VR 446 at 455. We note, however, that the facts of that case were quite unlike those asserted by the respondent here. There is no dispute between the parties as to the relevant facts. A man named Smith was at one time a director of Westgold. He was centrally involved in having Westgold sue St Barbara and a man named Woss for misleading conduct in relation to the sale by Mr Woss of some shares in St Barbara to Westgold. Later, Mr Smith ceased to be a director of Westgold. He was sued by Westgold and instructed Mr Blackman of the firm Clayton Utz to act for him. When Smith left the employment with Westgold, he retained in his possession copies of documents, including privileged communications, which were the property of Westgold and related to the action against St Barbara. Mr Smith approached Mr Woss who was, of course, a defendant in Westgold's action against St Barbara, and discussed with him the prospects of giving him the documents he had retained. Woss was interested. He instructed solicitors to seek the documents from Smith. Those solicitors wrote to Mr Blackman and asked that Smith produce the documents.