A boutique practice convinced a court to restrain the solicitors who were acting for one of its former employees on a confidentiality issue.
Banga Legal and principal solicitor Samir Banga were successful in their NSW Supreme Court application to restrain Solve Legal from acting for one of its former employed solicitors, Jessica Townsend.
Banga Legal, a family, criminal and immigration firm, filed proceedings in March to prevent Townsend from disclosing confidential information in breach of alleged contractual and fiduciary duties.
While still an employee, Townsend was retained to act for Mr Banga on a private matter and was responsible for appearing in court.
Banga Legal and Mr Banga alleged that during the course of that retainer, Townsend disclosed details of this matter to various persons.
The application to restrain Solve Legal concerned Banga Legal’s former employment relationship with solicitor Cameron Shamsabad, who had worked closely with Mr Banga and developed a friendly relationship with him and his wife between December 2021 and August 2022.
Under the consultancy agreement, Shamsabad agreed not to disclose or divulge confidential information during or after his time at Banga Legal.
Townsend, whose employment briefly overlapped with Shamsabad, contacted him at Solve Legal for employment law advice in March 2024. While Shamsabad no longer works for Solve Legal, the firm was retained to assist with the current confidentiality matter.
In its submissions, Banga Legal and Mr Banga alleged Solve Legal had a forensic advantage due to the “professional and personal relationship” between Mr Banga and Shamsabad, “including insights into the personality, vulnerabilities and litigious character of Mr Banga”.
Mr Banga said Shamsabad was “very much aware” of how he dealt with matters. There was no contradicting evidence from Shamsabad.
In response, Townsend said the application was procedurally defective and improper as it relied on a conflict involving Shamsabad, “who neither acted for Banga Legal [nor] Mr Banga, did not possess any confidential information, nor remains employed at Solve Legal”.
Having acted for Townsend for a “considerable period of time” before he left Solve Legal, and in circumstances where it concerned a private matter, Justice Anthony McGrath said it was evident that confidential information “is likely to have been of potential use” by Shamsabad for the benefit of Townsend, “giving her a forensic advantage”.
“I consider it should be inferred that there is a serious risk that Shamsabad would have utilised that confidential information about Mr Banga and [his wife] for the forensic benefit of Townsend during the period in which he was acting for her,” Justice McGrath said.
Justice McGrath said it was “too late to unscramble the egg” of which parts of the confidential information Shamsabad may or may not have disclosed to other employed solicitors at Solve Legal.
In these circumstances, he said the “appearance of justice is important”.
“In my opinion, a fair-minded, reasonably informed member of the public would conclude that, in these circumstances, the proper administration of justice, in the interests of protecting the integrity of the judicial process and due administration of justice, including the appearance of justice, requires that Solve Legal be prevented from acting for Townsend,” Justice McGrath said.
The case: All is 1 Pty Ltd t/as Banga Legal v Townsend [2025] NSWSC 953.
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
