Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 26 JUNE 2026

Restraining A Solicitor From Acting For A Client: An Extraordinary Power With A High Hurdle

Gilchrist Connell
Explore more from Gilchrist Connell

The New South Wales Court of Appeal has overturned a decision restraining a law firm from acting for a client, establishing that general observations of senior solicitors by junior lawyers do not constitute confidential information. The ruling clarifies when courts can invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction to prevent lawyers from representing clients and emphasizes that parties must be formally joined to proceedings that directly affect their rights.

AustraliaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Alex Haslam
Alex Haslam
Claudio Trovato
Claudio Trovato
Author LinkedIn connections

In the recent decision of Solve Legal Pty Ltd v All is 1 Pty Ltd (t/as Banga Legal) [2026] NSWCA 55, the New South Wales Court of Appeal overturned a decision that had restrained a law firm from acting for a litigant.

The decision reinforces the fundamental principle that parties should be able to choose their own lawyers absent a compelling reason to the contrary and held that general observations of senior solicitors by junior solicitors will not be considered “confidential information.”

Background

From December 2021, Cameron Shamsabad was employed by Banga Legal as a consultant solicitor. The terms of his employment contract restrained him from disclosing confidential information obtained while employed with Banga Legal.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

How To Draft A Defence And Reply

Queensland civil procedure requires defendants to respond to each factual allegation with precision—admissions, denials, or non-admissions must be properly explained, while inadequate responses risk being treated as admissions. Replies serve a distinct and limited purpose, addressing only new matters raised in the defence that could affect the claim's maintainability or introduce unexpected factual questions.
AustraliaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Stonegate Legal
Stonegate Legal
Article

AFCA’S New Approach To General Insurance Claims Handling: GICOP Compliance May Not Be Enough

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority has published new guidance clarifying how insurers must handle claims, including strict timeframes and expanded compensation rules. Insurers now face potential liability beyond policy limits for unreasonable delays, and may be required to compensate claimants for non-financial losses. With storm season approaching and complaint volumes rising, these changes create significant operational and financial pressure on the insurance industry.
AustraliaInsurance
Gilchrist Connell
Gilchrist Connell
Article

ASIC And APRA Corporate Plans 2026–27: What Regulated Entities Should Expect

APRA and ASIC have released their 2026–27 Corporate Plans, signalling more intensive supervision and enforcement, alongside targeted measures intended to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden. Their priorities span operational resilience, cyber security, artificial intelligence, consumer protection, insurance, superannuation, market integrity and digital assets. For regulated entities, the plans provide a practical roadmap of the areas most likely to attract supervisory attention, information requests and, where deficiencies are identified, enforcement action.
AustraliaCorporate/Commercial Law
Gilchrist Connell
Gilchrist Connell
Article

ASIC Puts Motor Vehicle Premium Transparency Under The Spotlight

ASIC's Report 838 reveals significant transparency gaps in motor vehicle insurance premium communications, finding that renewal documents often fail to explain price changes adequately and that over 30% of consumers who contacted their insurer successfully negotiated lower premiums. The report establishes clear expectations for better practice in pricing disclosures and signals continued regulatory scrutiny of insurance pricing practices.
AustraliaInsurance
Gilchrist Connell
Gilchrist Connell
Article

Workplace Investigations And Decision Makers: What Employers Can Learn From Totino v Metro Trains

The Full Court of the Federal Court has clarified critical procedural requirements for employers managing medical incapacity terminations and defending general protections claims. This landmark decision addresses when workplace relations advisers must give evidence in proceedings and whether show cause letters constitute unlawful threats under the Fair Work Act.
AustraliaEmployment and HR
Gilchrist Connell
Gilchrist Connell
Article

A $2 Million “sting”: First Civil Penalty For Breach Of The Duty Of Utmost Good Faith

The Federal Court has imposed a $2 million civil penalty on Hollard Insurance Partners for breaching the duty of utmost good faith in its handling of a home insurance claim. This landmark decision marks the first time an insurer has faced civil penalties under section 13(2A) of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984, following sustained delays, inadequate expert engagement, and failures to properly assess storm damage that left policyholders in temporary accommodation for over three years.
AustraliaInsurance
Gilchrist Connell
Gilchrist Connell