Farrington v Rowe McBride and Partners: 1985

(New Zealand) When a solicitor acts for two clients and there is a conflict in his responsibilities, the solicitor must ensure that he fully discloses the material facts to both clients and obtains their informed consent to his so acting. There may be circumstances, notwithstanding such disclosure, where it is impossible for the solicitor to act fairly and adequately for both parties: ‘A solicitor’s loyalty to his client must be undivided. He cannot properly discharge his duties to one whose interests are in opposition to those of another client. If there is a conflict in his responsibilities to one or both he must ensure that he fully discloses the material facts to both clients and obtains their informed consent to his so acting . . And there will be some circumstances in which it is impossible, notwithstanding such disclosure, for any solicitor to act fairly and adequately for both.’
Richardson J
[1985] 1 NZLR 83
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedClark Boyce v Mouat PC 4-Oct-1993
(New Zealand) No duty of wisdom is owed to client in full command of his faculties by a lawyer. If the client requires only action from his lawyer, that is what is required. Informed consent can be sufficient to allow a solicitor to act for two . .
CitedHilton v Barker Booth and Eastwood HL 3-Feb-2005
The claimant had instructed the defendant solicitors to act for him, where he was to contract with another client of the same solicitor in a land development. The solicitor failed to disclose that the other client had convictions for dishonesty, and . .
CitedBurkle Holdings Ltd v Laing TCC 23-Mar-2005
The parties had each instructed the same solicitor, but now disputed the entitlement of the other to see documents held by the solicitor. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 January 2021; Ref: scu.222539