Fakhrabadi and Ashrafinia [2011] NSWSC 697

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Fakhrabadi and Ashrafinia [2011] NSWSC 697 Hearing dates: 10, 15, 17 and 27 June 2011 Decision date: 06 July 2011 Jurisdiction: Equity Division Before: Sackar J Decision: 1. That Counsel be restrained from further acting for the plaintiff in these proceedings Catchwords: Application to Restrain Legal Practitioner from Acting - Principles to be Applied Cases Cited: Kallinicos and Anor v Hunt and Anor [2005] NSWSC 1181 Yunghanns & Ors v Elfic Ltd [1999] VSC 291 Worth Recycling Pty Ltd v. Waste Recycling and Processing Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 354 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Parvaneh Karami Fakhrabadi - plaintiff Mohammad Reza Ashrafinia - defendant Representation: G George/P Follino-Gallo - plaintiff D Jenkins - defendant Pateman, Legal - plaintiff Brown Wright Stein - defendant File Number(s): 2011/166674

Judgment 1The first defendant by notice of motion seeks to restrain Mr Gregory George of counsel from acting for the plaintiff (his mother) in these proceedings or from disclosing confidential information to her which had previously been communicated to Mr George by the first defendant in earlier proceedings in 2006. 2Orders are also sought to restrain the plaintiff's current law firm from acting further for her and/or from disclosing the same confidential information.

Factual Background 3In 2006 proceedings were heard before Barrett J in matter 2914/06. The second plaintiff in those proceedings Mr Mohammad Reza Ashrafinia (Mohammad) is the first defendant in these and another set of proceedings before this Court. 4The proceedings before Barrett J concerned a falling out between the plaintiffs and defendants in what was said to be either a quasi partnership or joint venture between the respective parties. Together they had operated a restaurant and night club at King Street Wharf in Sydney called La Cita. In those proceedings amongst other things a winding up of one of the corporate defendants was sought and a number of declarations were sought in respect of certain monies said to have been loaned for the purposes of the enterprise. Apart from one minor respect those proceedings were dismissed. 5There is no issue but that Mr George acted in those proceedings for the plaintiffs which included Mohammad. He was instructed by a Mr Marcel Kalfus, solicitor from the firm Pateman Legal. 6Mohammad affirmed an affidavit in those proceedings dated 24 May 2006. It may be that there were other affidavits prepared for him but that is the only one that is before this court. That affidavit purports to deal somewhat comprehensively with his involvement in the quasi partnership/joint venture. 7In paragraph 26 of that affidavit, Mohammad sets out a conversation, which he said took place at the end of April or early May 2003 with the person who was the third defendant in those proceedings. The point of the conversation appears to be that Mohammad was provoked to express his concern about the way in which the business was being run and in particular the way monies were being expended. In that conversation he was at pains to emphasise that he had invested his "family's money" and further expressed the concern that his "mother's house" may be exposed and placed in jeopardy as a result of the investment. It is accepted that the reference to his "mother's house" is to be taken to be a reference to a property known as 18 Brunton Place, Marsfield. That property is relevant to both sets of proceedings currently before this court.