‘Deeply troubling’: Appeal court rebukes attempts to sideline solicitors

In reversing the decision, Justices Anthony Payne, Jeremy Kirk, and Christine Adamson said the jurisdiction of the court to restrain a lawyer from acting in a particular case is an “extraordinary one”.

To do so in this instance would have the “deeply troubling outcome” of imposing a “significant restraint of trade on junior lawyers”.

Following her termination for allegedly leaking details of a “sensitive private matter” to colleagues and other claims of misconduct, Banga Legal commenced proceedings against Townsend in an effort to prevent her from disclosing allegedly confidential information.

Townsend sought the assistance of Cameron Shamsabad, who worked with Banga Legal as a consultant before moving to Solve Legal. Shamsabad no longer works with Solve Legal or acts for Townsend.

As part of its bid to restrain Solve Legal, Banga Legal alleged Shamsabad obtained “confidential information” about Mr Banga and his wife in the course of his engagement, and it was likely he had conveyed that information to Solve Legal before his departure.

This alleged information included discussions about “litigation strategy in the preparation and execution of legal matters”. It was also said to contain the “personality, vulnerabilities” of Mr and Mrs Banga.

VIEW ALL

In the primary decision, Justice McGrath said there was a serious risk that confidential information would have been used by Shamsabad for the benefit of Townsend, which led to an “obvious conflict of interest”.

On appeal, Justices Payne, Kirk, and Adamson noted the alleged confidential information was obtained in an employment context as part of the “ordinary exchange of information” between a lawyer, being Shamsabad, and his supervising lawyer, that being Mr Banga.

“It is fundamental to the legal profession that more senior practitioners be involved in the legal training and mentoring, whether formally or informally, of junior lawyers,” the bench stressed.

“It would be antithetical to the continued existence of the legal profession if junior lawyers availing themselves of supervision or mentoring opportunities were thereby to be precluded from acting in cases involving a lawyer who has provided training or mentoring.”

Observations made by Shamsabad of Mr Banga and his wife in a social setting “cannot possibly amount to ‘confidential information’” and do not warrant a protection order, the judges added.

“The notion underpinning the primary judge’s order that understanding a lawyer’s ‘appropriate litigation strategy in the preparation and execution of legal matters’ necessarily tells a person anything useful about how the lawyer will act as a client cannot be accepted.”

The Court of Appeal also noted neither party could point to a case where the alleged confidential information of a fellow solicitor was the foundation of a restraint that had then been imposed.

The bench said this was for “good reason”.

“The extraordinary jurisdiction here engaged should not be used, absent a compelling reason, to protect against the use of information about senior lawyers gained by junior lawyers as part of the ordinary processes of professional legal training and development,” they added.

It was also an error of Justice McGrath to make orders against Solve Legal without it having first been joined to the motion.

Citation: Solve Legal Pty Ltd v All is 1 Pty Ltd (t/as Banga Legal) [2026] NSWCA 55.