The claimant sought an injunction to prevent the defendant firm of solicitors acting for his employers against him. He said that they possessed information confidential to him having acted for him in a similar matter previously. The solicitors denied that they had so acted for him. Mr Winters was the chief executive of the United Kingdom branch of a prominent Jewish charity (‘JNF’). Winters and the JNF retained Mishcons in relation to some five related matters. With three of them there was a joint retainer. With regard to one, Mishcons acted for the JNF alone. With regard to another Mishcons acted for Mr Winters alone.
Held: The firm had acted only in a very minor matter. The claimant had failed to persuade the court that Mishcons breached the rules in any relevant respect when they acted for him on the two brief occasions identified. In particular there was no significant risk that the duties owed by Mishcons to Mr Winters might conflict with the duties which they owed to his former employer. The action was dismissed.
Henderson J said: ‘no question of privilege or confidence as between Mr Winters and the JNF could reasonably have been seen as arising at that stage, at any rate in relation to matters of common interest to Mr Winters and the JNF.’ and ‘It is in my judgment clear that in circumstances where there is a joint retainer, or where the same solicitors act for two clients in related matters in which they have a common interest, neither client can claim legal professional privilege against the other in relation to documents which come into existence or communications which pass between them and the solicitors, within the scope of the joint retainer or matter of common interest concerned.’
Henderson J
[2008] EWHC 2419 (Ch)
Bailii
Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007 3.01(2)(a)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – CIA Barca de Panama SA v George Wimpey and Co Ltd CA 1980
Claim to Legal Professional Privilege Lost
Barca and Wimpey had been 50/50 joint venturers through the medium of a company called DLW which had provided services to oil companies in the Middle East, including the Aramco Group. Wimpey agreed to buy out Barca’s interest in DLW on terms which . .
Cited – Prince Jefri Bolkiah v KPMG (A Firm) HL 16-Dec-1998
Conflicts of Duty with former Client
The House was asked as to the duties of the respondent accountants (KPMG). KPMG had information confidential to a former client, the appellant, which might be relevant to instructions which they then accepted from the Brunei Investment Agency, of . .
Cited – Rakusen v Elliss, Munday and Clark 1912
A firm of solicitors had two partners, who did business separately without having any knowledge of the affairs of each other’s clients. The plaintiff consulted one partner in an action for wrongful dismissal a company. He changed his solicitors and . .
Cited – Raats v Gascoigne Wicks 22-May-2006
(New Zealand High Court) The claimant sought an order to restrain her former solicitors from acting against her in a matter for a new client.
Held: There may be a jurisdiction for a court to exercise its inherent control over solicitors to . .
Cited – Koch Shipping Inc v Richards Butler (a Firm) CA 22-Jul-2002
The claimants in an arbitration sought orders with regard to a solicitor who had moved to the opponent’s firm of solicitors, but who came with privileged knowledge of the claimant’s business dealings. She offered undertakings, but the claimant . .
Cited – Swain v The Law Society HL 1983
The Solicitors’ Practice Rules had the force of a statute, being rules made by the Council of the Law Society with parliamentary sanction for the protection of that section of the public who might be in need of legal advice, assistance or oversight. . .
Cited – Halewood International Ltd v Addleshaw Booth and Co 2000
The court recognised the public interest in clients being able to retain the solicitors of their choice, and they should only be prevented from doing so on solid grounds. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Singla v Stockler and Another ChD 10-May-2012
The claimant appealed against the striking out of his action for an injunction against the defendant solicitors to restrain them for action for a person, saying that whilst there had been no formal retainer, they had informally advised him. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Legal Professions
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.276932