JOHN ARTHUR WRIGHT v. HAMPTON WINTER & GLYNN (a firm) AND ANOTHER

JOHN ARTHUR WRIGHT v. HAMPTON WINTER & GLYNN (a firm) AND ANOTHER

The application was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendants were in possession of information confidential to him that was relevant to the divorce proceedings; the court applied the approach requiring a real risk of misuse of relevant confidential information (not a merely theoretical or perception-based risk) and was not satisfied such a risk existed on the evidence.

Citation
JOHN ARTHUR WRIGHT v. HAMPTON WINTER & GLYNN (a firm) AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: John Arthur Wright; 1st Defendant: Hampton Winter & Glynn (a firm); 2nd Defendant: Sharon Andrea Ser
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 January 2008
Case Number
HCA2522/2007
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Injunction in Family/divorce Proceedings / Hearing on Application for Interlocutory Injunction (in Chambers)
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunction, Conflict of Interest, Confidential Information, Former Client Vs New Client, Legal Professional Conduct
Source Language
EN
Family Law Professional Conduct Conflict of Interest Confidentiality/solicitor Client Privilege Interlocutory Injunction Confidential Information Former Client Vs New Client Legal Professional Conduct

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Arthur Wright

Plaintiff

Hampton Winter & Glynn (a firm)

1st Defendant

Sharon Andrea Ser

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Injunction in Family/divorce Proceedings / Hearing on Application for Interlocutory Injunction (in Chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants (solicitors) possessed confidential information of the plaintiff relevant to the petitioner\'s divorce proceedings
  2. 2 Whether mere risk or appearance of possible misuse of confidences justifies injunctive relief or whether a real risk of disclosure is required
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff demonstrated a prima facie entitlement to an injunction on the evidence presented

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendants were in possession of information confidential to him that was relevant to the divorce proceedings; the court applied the approach requiring a real risk of misuse of relevant confidential information (not a merely theoretical or perception-based risk) and was not satisfied such a risk existed on the evidence.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • Interlocutory injunction refused/dismissed
  • Costs awarded to the defendants