Rodny v Stricke [2018] NSWCATAP 136

Rodny v Stricke [2018] NSWCATAP 136

There is no evidence of relevant confidential information in Mr Le Page's prior retainer that needs protection, but the appearance and risk of injustice and the potential perception of 'switching sides' justifies the condition preventing Mr Le Page from acting for the appellants. As to the respondents, while legal representation by the same firm (Clyde & Co) may be permitted, it must be subject to the condition that the Owners Corporation is not represented by the same practitioner or firm as other respondents unless the Owners Corporation in general meeting approves such representation, to account for possible divergent interests and proper administration of justice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Determination of Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Orders Concerning Legal Representation
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal against condition preventing representation by Mr Le Page dismissed. Appeal regarding respondents' legal representation allowed in part with varied order.
Legal Topics
['legal Representation in Tribunal' 'conflict of Interest – Legal Practitioners' 'strata Committee Disputes' 'leave to Appeal Interlocutory Decision']
['civil Procedure' 'strata Law'] ['legal Representation in Tribunal' 'conflict of Interest – Legal Practitioners' 'strata Committee Disputes' 'leave to Appeal Interlocutory Decision']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Determination of Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Orders Concerning Legal Representation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal erred in imposing a condition preventing Mr Le Page and his firm from representing the appellants due to alleged conflict of interest/confidential information' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in permitting legal representation of all respondents by Clyde & Co in the absence of informed consent and alleged conflicts' 'Relevant principles for granting or conditioning leave to be legally represented under s 45 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)']

Ratio Decidendi

There is no evidence of relevant confidential information in Mr Le Page's prior retainer that needs protection, but the appearance and risk of injustice and the potential perception of 'switching sides' justifies the condition preventing Mr Le Page from acting for the appellants. As to the respondents, while legal representation by the same firm (Clyde & Co) may be permitted, it must be subject to the condition that the Owners Corporation is not represented by the same practitioner or firm as other respondents unless the Owners Corporation in general meeting approves such representation, to account for possible divergent interests and proper administration of justice.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted. Appeal against condition preventing representation by Mr Le Page dismissed. Appeal regarding respondents' legal representation allowed in part with varied order.

Orders

  • ['The appellants are granted leave to appeal the interlocutory decision made on 29 January 2018.' 'In respect of the appeal against the condition imposed in respect of representation of the appellants by an Australian legal practitioner other than Mr Le Page and his firm, the appeal is dismissed.' 'In respect of the...