Mirpuri v Samtani: Injunction Against Law Firm for Conflict of Interest

Harsha Rajkumar Mirpuri (Mrs) née Subita Shewakram Samtani, the plaintiff, applied to the High Court of Singapore on 5 July 2018, seeking an injunction to restrain the defendant, Shanti Shewakram Samtani Mrs Shanti Haresh Chugani's law firm from representing her, alleging possession of confidential information from a prior consultation. The court dismissed the application, finding that the law firm was not in possession of confidential information relevant to the case and that there were no grounds to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Plaintiff sought to restrain defendant's law firm due to confidential information from a prior consultation. The court dismissed the application, finding no breach of confidence.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Harsha Rajkumar Mirpuri (Mrs) née Subita Shewakram SamtaniPlaintiffIndividualApplication DismissedLost
Shanti Shewakram Samtani Mrs Shanti Haresh ChuganiDefendantIndividualApplication DismissedWon
Ms X of Independent Practitioner

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Valerie TheanJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Gregory VijayendranRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Cheng Jin EdwinRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
GanesamoorthyRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Chua Zhi HueiRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Ms XIndependent Practitioner

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiff contacted the Firm in August 2016 to represent her in an action against her sister, the defendant.
  2. Plaintiff believed the defendant made unauthorized withdrawals from joint bank accounts.
  3. Plaintiff sought to recover her beneficial share, estimated at $14.7 million.
  4. Plaintiff also considered action against the defendant for mismanagement of their late parents’ estates.
  5. Plaintiff met with lawyers from the Firm on 20 October 2016.
  6. Plaintiff claimed confidential information was presented at the meeting.
  7. Plaintiff did not retain the Firm but hired Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP in November 2016.
  8. The Firm was appointed as the defendant's lawyers in November 2017.
  9. Plaintiff sought an injunction to restrain the Firm from acting for the defendant.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Harsha Rajkumar Mirpuri (Mrs) née Subita Shewakram Samtani v Shanti Shewakram Samtani Mrs Shanti Haresh Chugani, Suit No 849 of 2017(Summons No 5377 of 2017), [2018] SGHC 155

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Plaintiff contacted the Firm with the intention of appointing them to act for her
Mr. Hue corresponded with Mr. A and Mr. B through email to explain briefly the plaintiff’s claim
Plaintiff, her daughter and Mr. Hue met Mr. A and Mr. B
Mr. B sent the plaintiff an email inviting her to sign an appointment letter and a warrant to act
Plaintiff retained the services of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
R&T on behalf of the plaintiff issued the defendant a letter of demand
Plaintiff commenced action against the defendant and applied ex parte for a Mareva injunction
Defendant appointed lawyers
Defendant filed an application to discharge the Mareva injunction
Plaintiff filed three affidavits in reply
The Firm informed the plaintiff that they had been appointed the defendant’s lawyers
Defendant through the Firm filed a reply affidavit in her application to discharge the Mareva injunction, and also a new application to amend the application to discharge
Plaintiff filed the present application for an injunction to restrain the Firm from acting
Hearing of the application
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Conflict of Interest
    • Outcome: The court held that the law firm was not in possession of confidential information belonging to the plaintiff and therefore there was no conflict of interest.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Former prospective client
      • Duty of confidentiality
  2. Breach of Confidence
    • Outcome: The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish that the law firm was in possession of information belonging to the plaintiff that was either confidential to the plaintiff or relevant in the requisite sense to her pending action.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Confidential information
      • Relevance of information
  3. Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court
    • Outcome: The court accepted the existence of its supervisory jurisdiction but found no grounds to exercise it in this case.
    • Category: Jurisdictional
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Supervisory jurisdiction
      • Conduct of solicitors

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Injunction to restrain the law firm from acting for the defendant

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of confidence
  • Injunction

10. Practice Areas

  • Civil Litigation
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Alrich Development Pte Ltd v Rafiq JumabhoyHigh CourtYes[1994] 3 SLR(R) 38SingaporeCited regarding the right of a party to be represented by counsel of his choice and whether there was a reasonable risk of mischief to be avoided only by granting the injunction sought.
Vorobiev Nikolay v Lush John Frederick Peters and othersHigh CourtYes[2011] 1 SLR 663SingaporeCited for the application of the PCR to determine whether an application to restrain the plaintiff’s lawyers by way of an injunction ought to be granted.
Then Khek Khoon and another v Arjun Permanand Samtani and anotherHigh CourtYes[2012] 2 SLR 451SingaporeCited for the role of the PCR in an application to restrain a law firm.
Ong Jane Rebecca v Lim Lie Hoa and othersHigh CourtYes[2002] 1 SLR(R) 798SingaporeCited for the view that the Law Society was the proper forum for determining breaches of the PCR.
David Lee & Co (Lincoln) Ltd v Coward Chance (a firm)English CourtYes[1991] Ch 259EnglandCited for the distinction between disciplinary proceedings and applications for civil injunctions.
In re A Firm of SolicitorsEnglish CourtYes[1992] QB 959EnglandCited for limiting itself to the common law and only applied rules from the conduct rules which were within the boundaries of existing obligations owed at law.
Geveran Trading Co Ltd v SkjeveslandEnglish Court of AppealYes[2003] 1 WLR 912EnglandCited for the principle that a party has no right to prevent an advocate from acting based on the Code of Conduct of the Bar of England and Wales.
William Steward Arnold Martin v William Hamilton Gray, administrator with will annexed of the estate of John Edwin MacDonaldCanadian Supreme CourtYes[1990] 3 RCS 1235CanadaCited for the principle that courts are not bound to apply a code of ethics.
Rakusen v Ellis, Munday & ClarkeUnknownYes[1912] 1 Ch 831UnknownCited for the principle that an injunction would be granted if there exists a danger of a breach of the duty not to communicate confidential information, but overruled by Bolkiah.
Prince Jefri Bolkiah v KPMG (a firm)House of LordsYes[1999] 2 AC 222EnglandCited as the leading case on restraining a law firm from acting on grounds of protecting confidentiality.
Rickshaw Investments Ltd and another v Nicolai Baron von UexkullCourt of AppealYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 377SingaporeCited for the general proposition that the duty of confidentiality is a duty to keep the information in question confidential and not to misuse it.
Boey Pang Sim Richard v Law Society of SingaporeUnknownYes[2016] 1 SLR 837SingaporeCited for the observation that Bolkiah is stricter than the approach applied in earlier High Court decisions such as Alrich.
X Pte Ltd and another v CDEUnknownYes[1992] 2 SLR(R) 575SingaporeCited for the view that the duty of confidentiality is capable of arising in either contract or equity.
Deta Nominees Pty Ltd v Viscount Plastic Products Pty LtdUnknownYes[1979] VR 167UnknownCited for the view that the duty of confidentiality is capable of arising in either contract or equity.
Duchess of Argyll v Duke of ArgyllUnknownYes[1967] 1 Ch 302UnknownCited for the view that the policy of the law is to enforce confidences where a confidant has been given or has gained access to confidential information.
Lac Minerals Ltd v International Corona Resources LtdUnknownYes[1989] 2 SCR 574CanadaCited for the view that the conventional jurisdictional sources on which the courts rely are merely secondary mechanisms which provide the means by which the courts can enforce a confidence.
Hunt v AUnknownYes[2008] 1 NZLR 368New ZealandCited for the view that the conventional jurisdictional sources on which the courts rely are merely secondary mechanisms which provide the means by which the courts can enforce a confidence.
Lord Ashburton v PapeEnglish Court of AppealYes[1913] 2 Ch 469EnglandCited for the principle that the court may grant an injunction restraining the use of confidential information belonging to one party to an action that falls into the hands of opposing counsel by malicious design and even by accident.
English & American Insurance Co Ltd v Herbert SmithEnglish High CourtYes[1988] FSR 232EnglandCited for the principle that the court may grant an injunction restraining the use of confidential information belonging to one party to an action that falls into the hands of opposing counsel by malicious design and even by accident.
Saltman Engineering Co, Ltd and others v Campbell Engineering Co, LtdUnknownYes[1948] 65 RPC 203UnknownCited for the basic attribute which information must possess before it can be considered confidential is inaccessibility.
Parry-Jones v Law Society and OthersUnknownYes[1969] 1 Ch 1UnknownCited for the principle that information that the client gives to the lawyer which is considered confidential generally comprises information about the client’s affairs.
Ecclesiastical Insurance Office plc v Whitehouse-Grant-ChristScottish Court of SessionYes[2017] CSIH 33ScotlandCited for the principle that information disclosed during the course of proceedings ceases to be confidential as between the parties.
Stiedl v Enyo Law LLP and othersUnknownYes[2011] EWHC 2649 (Comm)England and WalesCited for the practice of granting an injunction whose effect is to restrain only the use of the confidential information in question, as opposed to restraining the law firm from acting for the defendant entirely.
Spincode Pty Ltd v Look Software Pty Ltd and OthersVictoria Court of AppealYes[2001] VSCA 248AustraliaCited for the existence of a supervisory jurisdiction of the court.
Davies v CloughUnknownYes8 Sim 262UnknownCited for the principle that all Courts may exercise an authority over their own officers as to the propriety of their behaviour.
Law Society of Singapore v Seah Li Ming Edwin and anotherUnknownYes[2007] 3 SLR(R) 401SingaporeCited for the broader public interest in ensuring that the integrity and standing of the profession as a whole are not undermined.
Dealer Support Services Pty Ltd (ACN 008 607 403) v Motor Trades Association of Australia Ltd (ACN 008 643 561)Federal CourtYes[2014] FCA 1065AustraliaCited for the principle that a jurisdiction of a similar kind has been regarded by the Federal Court as well established even though “contentious” in application.
Peter Kallinicos and Anor v Peter Anthony Hunt and orsNew South Wales Supreme CourtYes[2005] NSWSC 1181AustraliaCited as an example of the supervisory jurisdiction in action.
R v BattUnknownYes[1996] Crim LR 910UnknownCited as an example of permissible circumstances for the court to restrain an advocate from representing a party.
In re L (Minors) (Care Proceedings: Solicitors)UnknownYes[2001] 1 WLR 100UnknownCited as an example of permissible circumstances for the court to restrain an advocate from representing a party.
R v Sussex Justices, Ex p McCarthyUnknownYes[1924] 1 KB 256UnknownCited for the principle that it is important that justice should not only be done, but seen to be done.
Channel Tunnel Group Ltd and Another v Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd and OthersUnknownYes[1993] AC 334UnknownCited for the principle that in order to obtain an interlocutory injunction, the applicant must have a cause of action in law entitling him to substantive relief.
Siskina (Owners of cargo lately laden on board) and Others v Distos Compania Naviera SAUnknownYes[1979] AC 210UnknownCited for the principle that in order to obtain an interlocutory injunction, the applicant must have a cause of action in law entitling him to substantive relief.
In re A Firm of SolicitorsUnknownYes[1997] Ch 1UnknownCited for the test formulated by Lightman J in In re A Firm of Solicitors [1997] Ch 1 and also applied at first instance in Bolkiah
Borgese v Cater & Blumer Pty Ltd t/as Cater & Blumer (No 3)UnknownYes[2017] NSWSC 92AustraliaCited for the principle that Australia has largely followed Bolkiah.
Russell McVeagh McKenzie Bartleet & Co v Tower CorporationUnknownYes[1998] 3 NZLR 641New ZealandCited for the principle that prescribes undertaking a discretionary balancing exercise to determine whether a law firm should be restrained.
Carter Holt Harvey Forests Ltd v Sunnex Logging LtdUnknownYes[2001] 3 NZLR 343New ZealandCited for the principle that the New Zealand Court of Appeal appears to have recognised, and decided not to resolve, the conflict between Bolkiah and an earlier decision of that court, Russell McVeagh McKenzie Bartleet & Co v Tower Corporation
Torchlight Fund No 1 LP (in receivership) v NZ Credit Fund (GP) 1 Limited and othersUnknownYes[2014] NZHC 2552New ZealandCited for the principle that Bolkiah has been treated as authoritative without any explicit reference to Russell McVeagh
Amanda Adele White and another v Christopher Maurice Lynch and anotherUnknownYes[2014] NZHC 2819New ZealandCited for the principle that Bolkiah has been treated as authoritative without any explicit reference to Russell McVeagh
Vernon Peter Morris v Margaret Clare Morris and anotherUnknownYes[2015] NZHC 2315New ZealandCited for the principle that Bolkiah has been treated as authoritative without any explicit reference to Russell McVeagh
GUS Consulting GmbH v Leboeuf, Lamb, Greene & Macrae (a firm)UnknownYes[2006] EWCA Civ 683England and WalesCited for the principle that the inquiry is ultimately one of fact.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (S 706/2015)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Injunction
  • Confidential information
  • Conflict of interest
  • Former prospective client
  • Mareva injunction
  • Chinese wall
  • Information barrier
  • Supervisory jurisdiction
  • Duty of confidentiality
  • Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015

15.2 Keywords

  • Injunction
  • Conflict of interest
  • Law firm
  • Confidential information
  • Singapore
  • Civil procedure

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Civil Procedure80
Injunctions75
Breach of Confidence70
Inherent jurisdiction to supervise conduct of solicitors70
Legal Profession Act65
Former prospective client60
Jurisdiction60
Professional Ethics50
Contract Law30

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Legal Ethics
  • Conflict of Interest
  • Confidentiality