All is 1 Pty Ltd t/as Banga Legal v Townsend

This application brings two countervailing principles into direct clash: the freedom of choice of a party to have a particular solicitor act for them in proceedings and the right of the opposing party to restrain that solicitor from acting for that party.

The application is brought by the plaintiffs, ALL IS 1 Pty Ltd (trading as Banga Legal) and Samir Banga (the principal solicitor at Banga Legal), by notice of motion filed 11 July 2025 to restrain Solve Legal Pty Ltd (trading as Solve Legal) from acting for the defendant, Jessica Townsend (a former employed solicitor at Banga Legal), in these proceedings.

On 28 March 2025, Banga Legal and Mr Banga commenced the proceedings by filing the summons seeking to restrain Ms Townsend on an interlocutory and final basis from disclosing confidential information in breach of alleged contractual and fiduciary duties owed by Ms Townsend to Banga Legal.

Solve Legal currently act as the solicitors for Ms Townsend in these proceedings.

The basis on which Banga Legal and Mr Banga say that Solve Legal should be restrained from acting for Ms Townsend is that Cameron Shamsabad formerly worked as a consultant solicitor at Banga Legal, during which he came into possession of confidential information about Mr Banga, and he was subsequently employed as a solicitor by Solve Legal acting for Ms Townsend in these proceedings.

For the reasons set out below, I have determined that Solve Legal should be restrained from continuing to act for Ms Townsend in these proceedings.

Between about December 2021 and August 2022, Mr Shamsabad was employed by Banga Legal as a consultant solicitor on a contract basis. The terms on which Mr Shamsabad was engaged are contained in a Consultant Agreement signed by Mr Shamsabad on 3 January 2022. The Consultant Agreement contained confidentiality provisions (cl 5 on page 4), which included:

The “confidential information” included, but was not limited to, “all intellectual property and business processes that you learn in Banga Legal” (cl 1 on page 2) and “information contained in a document, or any software that is the property of the employer and which is by its nature confidential to us and/or our business and/or to any of our customers” (cl 5(a) on page 4).

Mr Banga says that he supervised Mr Shamsabad on numerous matters. Mr Banga also states that he and Mr Shamsabad worked closely together and discussed appropriate litigation strategy in the preparation and execution of legal matters. Mr Banga said that this extended to obtaining advice from counsel, the issuing of subpoenas, which witnesses would be used, what defences raised and what potential legal points arose. Mr Banga said that Mr Shamsabad “was very much aware through this experience of how I deal with matters”. There was no contradicting evidence from Mr Shamsabad to any of these matters.

Mr Banga also said:

Mr Banga is married to Mansheel Gill, who Mr Banga anticipates will be a witness in these proceedings.

From October 2022, Ms Townsend also worked at Banga Legal, initially as a volunteer and then as a solicitor on contract until 5 December 2024, before taking a permanent position from 6 December 2024 to 29 January 2025.

In February 2023, Mr Banga assigned Ms Townsend to act for him in a sensitive private matter (Private Matter). Ms Townsend was responsible for briefing counsel and appearing in court on the Private Matter.

Banga Legal and Mr Banga allege that, in the course of acting for Mr Banga in the Private Matter, Ms Townsend disclosed details of the Private Matter to various persons, including current employees of Banga Legal.

On 8 August 2022, after Mr Shamsabad ceased working for Banga Legal, Mr Shamsabad commenced to be employed as a solicitor at Solve Legal. The principal of Solve Legal is Kyle Kutasi, holding the position of Legal Practitioner Director. Solve Legal has 11 employed solicitors in addition to Mr Kutasi. One of the employees of Solve Legal is Pawel Brozek.

In about March 2024, Mr Kutasi had a conversation with Mr Shamsabad in which Mr Shamsabad said he had been contacted by Ms Townsend who wanted to obtain some employment law advice in relation to her employment at Banga Law as a contractor. Mr Kutasi told Mr Shamsabad that he could “go for it” in acting for Ms Townsend, which I infer to be in his position as a solicitor at Solve Legal. Mr Kutasi said that as Mr Shamsabad had effectively introduced Ms Townsend to Solve Legal and Mr Shamsabad was keen to work on the matter, Mr Kutasi saw no reason why he should not. Ms Townsend then continued to consult with Mr Shamsabad intermittently.

On 28 March 2025, Banga Legal and Mr Banga filed the summons commencing these proceedings.

Mr Shamsabad then worked as a solicitor at Solve Legal for Ms Townsend in these proceedings, including by:

Mr Shamsabad was also sent emails by Ms Townsend providing copies of emails sent by Shirin Razi of Adazi Lawyers (the solicitors for Banga Legal and Mr Banga) to Ms Townsend in relation to the Private Matter. The communications between Ms Townsend and Mr Shamsabad may mean that Mr Shamsabad will be a witness in these proceedings.

On 3 April 2025, during a recess in the hearing of the interlocutory application before Kunc J, Mr Kutasi and Mr Shamsabad met with counsel and the solicitors for Banga Legal and Mr Banga to seek to negotiate the terms of a proposed undertaking. During those negotiations, Mr Kutasi told those counsel and solicitors to “fuck off”. Before Kunc J, Mr Kutasi admitted to saying these words and apologised for doing so.

On 5 April 2025, Banga Legal and Mr Banga filed the amended summons seeking relief including orders restraining Ms Townsend from using or disclosing their confidential information, compelling its return and disclosure, suppressing certain information, and making declarations, awarding damages, and other relief.

On 29 April 2025, Ms Razi sent an email to Mr Kutasi requesting that both Mr Shamsabad and Mr Kutasi immediately cease acting for Ms Townsend on the basis of conflicts of interest.

On 29 April 2025, Mr Kutasi sent a letter to Ms Razi denying that there was any conflict of interest and stating that Solve Legal would continue to act for Ms Townsend.

On 11 July 2025, Banga Legal and Mr Banga filed the motion making the application to restrain Solve Legal from acting for Ms Townsend in the proceedings.

On 12 July 2025, Mr Shamsabad resigned from Solve Legal to take parental leave and then become a barrister.

On 15 August 2025, the hearing of the motion took place before me. Mr M Zammit appeared as counsel for Banga Legal and Mr Banga. Mr P Brozek of Solve Legal appeared for Ms Townsend.

In Kallinicos v Hunt (2005) 64 NSWLR 561; [2005] NSWSC 1181, Brereton J provided a detailed history of the development of the court’s power to restrain a solicitor from acting at [31]–[75], and summarised the principles at [76] as follows:

In Mitchell v Burrell [2008] NSWSC 772, Brereton J at [20] and [25] stated:

In Li v Jin Lian Group Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 479, Gleeson JA outlined the basic principles of obligations of confidence and its breaches at [10]–[12]:

Stevenson J in Re Edgecliff Car Rentals Pty Ltd (deregistered) [2017] NSWSC 244 cited with apparent approval at [25] the observations of Brooking JA (with whom Ormiston and Chernov JJA agreed) in Spincode Pty Ltd v Look Software Pty Ltd (2001) 4 VR 501; [2001] VSCA 248 at [58] that confidential information may include “knowledge of such things as the personalities and reactions of participants” and the observation of Harper M in Byrne v Production Magic Pty Ltd [2012] ACTSC 6 at [20] that confidential information may involve “the knowledge of the…vulnerabilities and strengths of the plaintiff [that] may be of use to those conducting the litigation”. Stevenson J then stated the following at [29]–[30]:

Banga Legal and Mr Banga submit that the court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to restrain Solve Legal from acting for Ms Townsend on the following three grounds:

Ms Townsend submits the motion should be dismissed because the application is procedurally defective as Solve Legal is not a party, improperly seeks to restrain an entire firm not simply Mr Shamsabad, and relies on an alleged conflict involving Mr Shamsabad, who neither acted for Banga Legal or Mr Banga, did not possess any confidential information, nor remains employed at Solve Legal.

Ms Townsend states that the threshold for restraining solicitors is high and requires specific confidential information or a real risk of misuse, which Mr Townsend says Banga Legal and Mr Banga have not identified. Ms Townsend argues that mere acquaintance or prior employment does not establish a conflict of interest.

Ms Townsend submits that no one at Solve Legal has personal knowledge of the matter, and the alleged prospect of witnesses or breaches of professional conduct rules is unfounded.

It is true that Solve Legal is not named as a party to motion. It is also the case that where the interests of third parties are affected by an application they should be made party to it, be given notice of it and be heard in respect of it. But in the present case, there is no injustice to Solve Legal because it was put on notice of the application, appeared at the hearing through their employed solicitor Mr Brozek, led evidence and made submissions opposing it.

Turning to the merits of the application, it is clear that while engaged as a contractor for Banga Legal, Mr Shamsabad acquired information about the personality, vulnerabilities and litigation strategies of Mr Banga. In addition, the social contact that Mr Shamsabad had with Mr Banga and his wife, Ms Gill, means that he also acquired information about her personality and vulnerabilities. Applying the reasoning in Edgecliff Car Rentals, I consider that the information acquired by Mr Shamsabad to be confidential to Mr Banga and Ms Gill. To the extent that the confidential information was about Mr Banga Legal, it is likely that Mr Shamsabad was bound by the obligation of confidentiality he owed to Banga Legal not to use or disclose it.

Banga Legal and Mr Banga are not seeking to make a claim of breach of confidentiality against Mr Shamsabad so it is not necessary for me to determine that all of the elements of such a claim as stated in Li are made out. Instead, I am dealing with the circumstances in which the court will restrain officers of the court from acting in conflict when in possession of confidential information.

As an employed solicitor of Solve Legal, Mr Shamsabad has acted for Ms Townsend for a considerable period of time (March 2024 to July 2025), both in providing advice to her in advance of the proceedings and during the proceedings. In the circumstances of these proceedings, Mr Banga has broad claims which centre on the Private Matter (involving issues very personal to him), Mr Banga is likely to be a witness in his own case and Ms Gill is likely to be a witness for Banga Legal and Mr Banga. It appears to be self-evident that the confidential information is likely to have been of potential use by Mr Shamsabad for the benefit of Ms Townsend, giving her a forensic advantage in these proceedings. I consider it should be inferred that there is a serious risk that Mr Shamsabad would have utilised that confidential information about Mr Banga and Ms Gill for the forensic benefit of Ms Townsend during the period in which he was acting for her.

In those circumstances, I consider that there was an obvious conflict of interest for Mr Shamsabad in acting for Ms Townsend, yet he has done so for a considerable period of time. Mr Shamsabad has also worked alongside Mr Kutasi on the matter. The fact that Mr Shamsabad no longer works at Solve Legal does not alleviate the issue created by the fact that Mr Shamsabad acted with that conflict for so long.

As stated in Kallinicos, the court has an inherent jurisdiction to restrain solicitors from acting in a case as an incident of the inherent jurisdiction over its officers and to control its process in aid of the administration of justice. Kallinicos also tells me that the test I am to apply is whether a fair-minded, reasonably informed member of the public would conclude that the proper administration of justice requires that a legal practitioner should be prevented from acting, in the interests of the protection of the integrity of the judicial process and the due administration of justice, including the appearance of justice.

I have given due weight to the fact that Ms Townsend should not be deprived of the lawyer of her choice and the inconvenience and impracticability of requiring a lawyer to cease acting.

The mere fact that Mr Shamsabad may be a witness in the proceedings is not sufficient of itself to cause him or Solve Legal to be restrained: Mitchell, Brereton J at [20] and [25]. I have also placed no weight on the disgraceful conduct of Mr Kutasi during the recess in the hearing before Kunc J for which he apologised.

The real issue is the possession of confidential information by Mr Shamsabad. Having been in possession of the confidential information through its employee, Mr Shamsabad, it is too late to “unscramble the egg” of what parts of the confidential information Mr Shamsabad did or did not impart to other members of Solve Legal (including Mr Kutasi) before he ceased working for it. This is a powerful factor in favour of restraining Solve Legal from acting for Ms Townsend in these proceedings, even though Mr Shamsabad no longer works there. The appearance of justice is important in these circumstances.

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 Ms Townsend.

For the reasons stated above, I propose to make the following orders: