Wright v Tuhaka; Tuhaka v Wright

[2016] NSWDC 444

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Wright v Tuhaka; Tuhaka v Wright [2016] NSWDC 444
Hearing dates:	24 March 2016
Date of orders:	31 March 2016
Decision date:	31 March 2016
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	P Taylor SC DCJ
Decision:	(1)   Dismiss the application with costs. (2)   List for directions on Thursday, 7 April 2016 at 10am before the Judicial Registrar.
Catchwords:	LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - application to restrain solicitor from acting against former client – confidential information – relevant information
Legislation Cited:	Contracts Review Act 1980 District Court Act 1973, s 46
Cases Cited:	Everett v Neale [2012] NSWDC 73 Kallinicos v Hunt (2005) 64 NSWLR 561 Maxwell-Smith v S & E Hall Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 146 Prince Jefri Bolkiah v KPMG (a firm) [1999] 1 All ER 517; [1999] 2 AC 222 Sanna v Wyse and Young International Pty Limited & Others (No.1) [2015] NSWSC 580 Watson v Watson (Santow J, 25 May 1998, New South Wales Supreme Court, unreported)
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	2015/231512 Shane Wright – first plaintiff Commercial & Domestic Restorations Pty Limited – second plaintiff Corey Tuhaka - defendant   2015/72694 Corey Tuhaka – plaintiff Shane Wright - defendant
Representation:	Counsel: Shane Wright and Commercial & Domestic Restorations Pty Limited – Ms I J King Corey Tuhaka – Mr J Ireland   Solicitors: Shane Wright and Commercial & Domestic Restorations Pty Limited - K M Harkness & Co Corey Tuhaka – Brander Smith McKnight
File Number(s):	2015/231512; 2015/72694
Publication restriction:	None

Judgment

INTRODUCTION

1. Mark Smith is the solicitor for Corey Tuhaka, the plaintiff in one of the proceedings in this matter. In times past, Mr Smith also acted for Commercial & Domestic Restorations Pty Limited and Shane Wright, the plaintiffs in the other proceedings against Mr Tuhaka. Mr Wright is the defendant in Mr Tuhaka's proceedings. Mr Wright and Commercial & Domestic have applied for orders to preclude Mr Smith from continuing to act for Mr Tuhaka.

BACKGROUND

2. Mr Tuhaka and Mr Wright were joint shareholders in Commercial & Domestic. Mr Smith acted for Commercial & Domestic in relation to the departure of a former employee and shareholder, and also acted for it, Mr Tuhaka and Mr Wright in relation to a coronial inquiry concerning a fire. In relation to the coronial inquiry, Mr Wright denied any involvement in the fire and no adverse findings were made against Mr Wright, Mr Tuhaka, or Commercial & Domestic.

3. At the hearing of the application, no point was pressed about Mr Smith having acted for Mr Wright. Rather, it was because Mr Smith had acted for Commercial & Domestic that was submitted to be the reason why Mr Smith should not be permitted to act for Mr Tuhaka, given that Commercial & Domestic had a claim against Mr Tuhaka.

4. The proceedings concern disputes between Mr Tuhaka and Mr Wright arising out of the departure of Mr Tuhaka from involvement in Commercial & Domestic and the sale of his shares in it to Mr Wright. Mr Tuhaka…