Court intervenes in messy firm, fired lawyer clash

Banga Legal and Mr Banga brought proceedings against Townsend in the NSW Supreme Court, while Townsend has commenced proceedings against Banga Legal and Mr Banga in the FCFCOA.

At the centre of both is a dispute around the circumstances of Townsend’s termination from Banga Legal – also known as All is 1 – in December 2024, about two years after she started at the firm.

Last September, Banga Legal successfully had Townsend’s former representation restrained due to a “forensic advantage”.

Justice Meek said it was clear there would need to be an examination of the circumstances in which Townsend was engaged at Banga Legal; the tasks she was given and the performance of those tasks; and what, if any, confidential information was disclosed to her.

However, despite each of the proceedings being commenced more than a year ago, Justice Meek said “neither of the opposing parties [has] filed a defence or response to the other’s respective court claims”.

While the matter was brought before Justice Meek to hear a notice of motion, he said the priority should be in determining which court the dispute should continue in to avoid future complications.

VIEW ALL

For example, one court may find confidential information was imparted to Townsend, only for the other to dismiss the allegations.

“In light of the above, it seems to me that unless action is taken to address the disparate litigation, both proceedings may progress with a risk of inconsistent findings, complication and increased costs.

“Notwithstanding both sets of proceedings were commenced some 10 to 12 months ago, neither of the parties thus far has seemingly been willing to grasp the nettle and to take steps to address whether a single court is able to resolve their claims and to seek to have the proceedings joined, if it is indeed possible,” Justice Meek said.

Following a discussion with both parties’ counsel, it was “readily acknowledged” that the matter was one that “needed to be grappled with”.

Justice Meek said there was statutory mandate and “good common sense” for the parties “to embrace the type of unity befitting the ‘All is 1’ (all-is-one) nomenclature, that since January 2025 has eluded them, and to see whether they can cooperatively work to simply the mechanism and structure of resolution of their disputes”.

“The court is not a silent or idle participant in the effective case management of civil litigation,” Justice Meek said.

“Progression of proceedings is actively overseen by the court and not merely or predominantly left to forensic decisions of the parties.

“Particularly where parties fail to engage with one another regarding the conduct of litigation, the court may intervene and direct steps to facilitate parties to confront and address real issues previously ignored by them.”

Citation: ALL IS 1 PTY LTD (t/as Banga Legal) v Townsend [2026] NSWSC 24.