Watkins v Christian

In the matter of Watkins v Christian, the respondent, who was suffering from mental health issues, initiated legal proceedings in the Supreme Court, seeking equitable compensation, restitution, and damages totaling $314,960, along with an account of financial transactions conducted by the appellant. The respondent was granted leave to amend her claim to include the appointment of a litigation guardian. Subsequently, the appellant sought to remove the litigation guardian and restrain the respondent's solicitors from continuing to act on her behalf, alleging that the guardian's interests were contrary to those of the respondent. The primary judge dismissed the application without making findings regarding the existence of a new Power of Attorney or Will, and without addressing whether the guardian's interests were adverse to the respondent's, or whether the solicitors should be restrained from acting.

The court was tasked with determining whether the primary judge erred in not addressing the existence of a new Power of Attorney or Will, in not concluding that the litigation guardian's interests were adverse to the respondent's, and in not restraining the respondent's solicitors from acting. The appeal raised questions about the appropriateness of the litigation guardian's appointment and the extent to which the interests of the guardian aligned with those of the respondent. The court also had to consider whether the administration of justice would be better served by restraining the respondent's solicitors from continuing to represent her.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the primary judge did not err in his decision. The court held that there was no basis to conclude that the litigation guardian's interests were adverse to the respondent's, and that there was no need to restrain the respondent's solicitors from acting. The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.