Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
BQC23 v BQS23 [2023] FCA 889 File number: VID 314 of 2023
Judgment of: RARES J
Date of judgment: 28 June 2023
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to appeal from refusal to grant injunction restraining solicitors and counsel from continuing to act in main proceeding for remaining clients after applicant terminated joint retainer – where primary judge's reasons not published to prevent disclosure of information subject to legal professional privilege – where applicant sought to raise new argument not put to primary judge – whether decision of primary judge attended by sufficient doubt to warrant grant of leave – whether substantial injustice would result if leave to appeal refused – held: application dismissed.
Cases cited: Bienstein v Bienstein (2003) 195 ALR 225 Coulton v Holcombe (1986) 162 CLR 1 Maguire v Makaronis (1997) 188 CLR 449 Pilmer v The Duke Group Limited (in liquidation) (2001) 207 CLR 165
Division: General Division
Registry: Victoria
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: Commercial Contracts, Banking, Finance and Insurance
Number of paragraphs: 43
Date of hearing: 28 June 2023
Counsel for the applicant: Mr J Levine
Solicitor for the applicant: Matrix Legal
Counsel for the respondents: Mr A Kirby
Solicitor for the respondents: DW Fox Tucker Lawyers
ORDERS VID 314 of 2023
BETWEEN: BQC23 Applicant
AND: BQS23 Respondent
BQR23 Respondent
BQQ23 Respondent
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate