Vorobiev Nikolay v Lush John Frederick Peters: Conflict of Interest & Legal Representation
In Vorobiev Nikolay v Lush John Frederick Peters, the Singapore High Court considered an application to restrain Drew & Napier LLC from representing the plaintiff, Nikolay Vorobiev, against the defendants, John Frederick Peters Lush, Francois Ostinelli, and Alexander Novoselov, due to a conflict of interest. The defendants argued that Drew & Napier had previously acted for them in related matters. The High Court allowed the defendants' application, restraining Drew & Napier from representing the plaintiff, finding that the prior representation constituted a conflict of interest under the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct Rules).
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application to restrain Drew & Napier from acting for the plaintiff allowed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
High Court restrains Drew & Napier from representing Vorobiev against Lush due to prior representation of Lush in related matters, citing conflict of interest.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vorobiev Nikolay | Plaintiff | Individual | Application to strike out defendants' application dismissed | Lost | Tan Gim Hai Adrian, Mohamed Nawaz Kamil, Nuraisah Binte Ruslan, Foo Wen Ying Esther |
| Lush John Frederick Peters | Defendant | Individual | Application to restrain plaintiff's solicitor allowed | Won | Koh Swee Yen, Sim Hui Shan |
| Francois Ostinelli | Defendant | Individual | Application to restrain plaintiff's solicitor allowed | Won | Koh Swee Yen, Sim Hui Shan |
| Alexander Novoselov | Defendant | Individual | Application to restrain plaintiff's solicitor allowed | Won | Koh Swee Yen, Sim Hui Shan |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lee Seiu Kin | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Tan Gim Hai Adrian | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Mohamed Nawaz Kamil | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Nuraisah Binte Ruslan | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Foo Wen Ying Esther | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Koh Swee Yen | WongPartnership LLP |
| Sim Hui Shan | WongPartnership LLP |
4. Facts
- Vorobiev sued Lush, Ostinelli, and Novoselov for fraudulent misrepresentation related to the purchase of shares in Stainby Overseas Limited.
- Drew & Napier, the plaintiff's solicitors, had previously acted for the defendants in matters related to the Stainby shares.
- The defendants applied to restrain Drew & Napier from acting for the plaintiff, citing a conflict of interest.
- The plaintiff argued that the conflict of interest rule only applies if confidential information was obtained in the prior representation.
- The court found that the previous retainers were related to the current proceedings, as they dealt with the same shareholders loan and price of Everon shares.
- The court held that Rule 31 of the PCR imposes an absolute prohibition against a solicitor acting against a former client in the same or related matter, regardless of confidential information.
5. Formal Citations
- Vorobiev Nikolay v Lush John Frederick Peters and others, Suit No 720 of 2009 (Summons Nos 2035 and 2312 of 2010), [2010] SGHC 290
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Artem Zakharov contacted the plaintiff who then agreed to buy 20% share in PPL. | |
| Boyce was issued 20% shareholding in Stainby. | |
| Stainby became the sole shareholder of PPL. | |
| Stainby and PPL entered into a loan arrangement. | |
| Parties agreed they would each provide another loan of US$1,000,000 to Stainby. | |
| Stainby and PPL entered into another loan arrangement. | |
| Petroval SA commenced proceedings in BVI against the defendants, their nominee companies, and Boyce. | |
| PSA commenced proceedings in Singapore against the defendants. | |
| Parties to the Singapore proceedings settled. | |
| Lush filed an application to stay the proceedings against him in favour of Switzerland. | |
| Plaintiff obtained an order for service of the writ and statement of claim out of jurisdiction on Ostinelli and Novoselov. | |
| Order for service out of jurisdiction was set aside by assistant registrar Denise Wong. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Conflict of Interest
- Outcome: The court held that Drew & Napier was conflicted from acting for the plaintiff due to prior representation of the defendants in related matters.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Prior Representation
- Same or Related Matter
8. Remedies Sought
- Injunction to restrain Drew & Napier from acting for the plaintiff
9. Cause of Actions
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Professional Conduct
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rakusen v Ellis, Munday & Clarke | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1912] 1 Ch 831 | England and Wales | Cited to discuss the common law position on whether a solicitor can act for the opposite party in the same matter, focusing on the risk of disclosing confidential information. |
| In re a firm of solicitors | Queen's Bench | Yes | [1992] QB 959 | England and Wales | Cited to support the test of 'reasonable anticipation of mischief' regarding the use of confidential information from associated companies. |
| Alrich Development Pte Ltd v Rafiq Jumabhoy | High Court | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR(R) 38 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of 'reasonable anticipation of mischief' and the Law Society's Practice Directions regarding conflict of interest. |
| Seet Melvin v Law Society of Singapore | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR(R) 186 | Singapore | Cited to support the position that what is prohibited is putting oneself in a situation where real mischief or prejudice would result, not merely a mere risk. |
| In re A Firm of Solicitors | Chancery Division | Yes | [1997] Ch 1 | England and Wales | Cited to emphasize that the basis of the court's intervention is the protection of confidential information and to outline the constraints on solicitors acting against former clients. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Seah Li Ming Edwin and another | Court of Three Judges | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR(R) 401 | Singapore | Cited to support the view that Rule 31 is stricter than the common law position and to emphasize the importance of the solicitor-client relationship of trust and public confidence. |
| Diamond v Foo and others | England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) | Yes | [2002] EWHC 979 (CH) | England and Wales | Cited regarding the procedure for applications to restrain solicitors from acting due to conflict of interest. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession (Professional Conduct Rules) (Cap 161, r 71, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Conflict of Interest
- Legal Representation
- Professional Conduct Rules
- Prior Representation
- Same or Related Matter
- Confidential Information
- Solicitor-Client Relationship
15.2 Keywords
- conflict of interest
- legal representation
- professional conduct
- solicitor
- law firm
- Singapore
16. Subjects
- Legal Ethics
- Professional Responsibility
17. Areas of Law
- Legal Ethics
- Conflict of Interest
- Civil Procedure