Confidential info (Lionel Smith, 19 Feb 1999)

Of course it's just a tree. What does it look like ?

RDG online
Restitution Discussion Group Archives

Restitution
front page

What's new?

Another tree!

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Another tree!

<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>

Sender:	Lionel Smith
Date:	Fri, 19 Feb 1999 12:08:10
Re:	confidential info

Not really restitution, but those who like confidential information might be interested in Bolkiah v. KPMG [1999] 1 All ER 517 (HL). The problem arises where I retain solicitors (in this case, accountants acting like solicitors) and then either (a) after acting for me, the firm wants to act for a party adverse in interest or (b) a member of the firm acting for me moves to another firm acting for a party adverse in interest. This case was (a). The question is whether I can have the firm acting for the other side disqualified on the basis that confidences are bound to leak. The HL has overruled an old CA holding adopting a laxer test, and followed Australian and Canadian authority in favour of a stricter test, and so disqualified KPMG from what looked like a pretty lucrative retainer.

Lionel

<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>

" These messages are all © their authors. Nothing in them constitutes legal advice, to anyone, on any topic, least of all Restitution. Be warned that very few propositions in Restitution command universal agreement, and certainly not this one. Have a nice day! "

»
»
»
»
»

For editorial policy, see here.
For the unedited archive, see here.
The archive editor is Steve Hedley.