The High Court refused an injunction that would have stopped a solicitor from representing the applicant in an appeal arising from judicial separation and ancillary relief proceedings.
The respondent sought the order in September 2014 after discovering documents showing that M.W. had advised him in 1997 and 1998, before she acted for the applicant. The advice concerned his relationship with the applicant, money he said he had lent her in connection with a property, agreements involving his company, and the end of their engagement. Neither the respondent nor M.W. recalled the earlier dealings.
The court applied the test in *Prince Jefri Bolkiah v. KPMG*: whether the former solicitor held confidential information belonging to the applicant that might be relevant to a new matter in which the other client’s interests could be adverse. Justice Michael White found the respondent met that threshold. M.W.’s lack of recollection did not discharge the burden that then shifted to her to justify continuing to act.
But the judge distinguished the case because the family law issues connected to the old advice had already been determined by the High Court. The respondent’s appeal, lodged in November 2013, was pending before either the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal. The judge said it was to be heard on the High Court transcript and the grounds of appeal, which the respondent could seek to expand.
The court considered that removing M.W. would severely prejudice the applicant, whom it described as an innocent party, given the length and complexity of the proceedings. It also noted that M.W. had not remembered advising the respondent and did not have access to the material he found in June 2014.
The judge identified a possible difficulty if an appellate court were to remit any part of the case to the High Court and the old confidential information became relevant to that further hearing. Even so, he concluded that the respondent had not shown a basis to stop M.W. acting in the appeal and refused the relief sought. The ruling did not determine the pending appeal itself.