2025/00345099
| Date | Party | Submission |
|---|---|---|
| Applicant | Draft Notice of Appeal (PDF, 398.9 KB) | |
| 8/10/25 | Applicant | Summary of Argument (PDF, 3.1 MB) |
| 28/11/25 | Respondent | Summary of Argument (PDF, 288.4 KB) |
| 12/2/26 | Applicant | Submissions (PDF, 215.8 KB) |
| 12/3/26 | Respondent | Submissions (PDF, 384.2 KB) |
| 26/3/26 | Applicant | Reply (PDF, 166.5 KB) |
LEGAL PRACTICE – the applicant seeks leave to appeal against the orders of McGrath J restraining Solve Legal, a law firm, from acting for Jessica Townsend in proceedings brought by All is 1 Pty Ltd (trading as Banga Legal) and its principal, Samir Banga. The underlying dispute broadly concerns allegations by Banga Legal and Mr Banga that Jessica Townsend, a former solicitor at Banga Legal, misused or disclosed confidential information obtained during her employment. The present judgment does not decide those substantive claims. Instead, it addresses whether Solve Legal, the firm acting for Ms Townsend, should be restrained from continuing to act. Justice McGrath found that Cameron Shamsabad, a former consultant at Banga Legal who later worked for Solve Legal, had acquired confidential information about Mr Banga and his wife, including litigation strategies and personal vulnerabilities, which created a serious risk of forensic advantage for Ms Townsend. Although Mr Shamsabad had left Solve Legal, the Court held that the appearance of justice required the firm to be restrained, as it was impossible to "unscramble the egg" regarding what confidential information may have been shared. Applying its inherent jurisdiction and the test from Kallinicos v Hunt, the Court concluded that a fair-minded, reasonably informed member of the public would regard restraint as necessary to protect the integrity of the judicial process. On appeal, the applicant argues that McGrath J erred in finding, inter alia, that (i) Mr Shamsabad had acquired information about the personality, vulnerabilities and litigation strategies of the second respondent and his wife; (ii) an obligation of confidence was owed to the first respondent; (iii) there was a serious risk of using confidential information; (iv) there was an obvious conflict of interest; (v) a fair-minded reasonably informed member of the public would conclude that the proper administration of justice would require the applicant to be prevented from acting for the third respondent; (vi) that ·costs should be awarded where no opportunity was properly given to be heard.
Last updated: