Federal Court sees no conflict in solicitors acting for employer

The applicant sent the respondent’s solicitors a letter dated 12 August 2025. She relied on the terms of r 12.1 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015. She alleged that: 

• The solicitors had a conflict in acting for the respondent in this proceeding 
• There was a real and sensible possibility that the solicitors’ duty to act in the respondent’s best interests might conflict with their interests in defending their prior work and reputation or avoiding potential criticism or liability 
• The present proceeding revolved around the validity, interpretation, or effect of the EA, in which the respondent’s solicitors were directly involved 
• The current matter could lead to scrutiny of their previous work, advice, and conduct 

Conflict not found

The Federal Court of Australia dismissed the applicant’s interlocutory oral application, which sought to restrain the respondent from continuing to engage its solicitors in this proceeding. 

The court made the following findings: 

• The EA was a non-greenfields single enterprise agreement, which the Fair Work Commission approved on 27 April 2022 and which had a nominal expiry date of 30 June 2025 
• The employees whom the EA would cover made the enterprise agreement when they voted on it 
• Two lawyers of Corrs Chambers Westgarth acted for and advised the respondent regarding the enterprise bargaining that led to making and approving the EA 
• Those two lawyers left Corrs by December 2024 and were no longer the firm’s partner or employee, with one currently working as a King & Wood Mallesons partner 
• Under the coverage clause, the EA covered and applied to the respondent’s employees engaged in its operations at Lorimer Street, Port Melbourne, whose employment terms and conditions fell under the enterprise agreement 
• The pleadings raised a dispute over whether the EA covered the applicant in the period when the respondent employed her 
• Neither party assailed the EA’s validity 
• The pleadings included no issues challenging any personal conduct of the respondent’s past or present solicitors, either individually or collectively by reference to Corrs 

The court deemed it likely that the question of whether the EA covered the applicant would depend on evidence concerning the EA’s terms, her employment terms, and the work she performed during her employment. 

The court saw no basis to conclude that the respondent’s solicitors could provide admissible evidence regarding the applicant’s employment terms and conditions. The court found it difficult to believe that the evidence of the respondent’s former or current lawyers would be relevant to the coverage issue or its outcome. 

The court concluded that the proceeding raised no claims with any real prospects of challenging the conduct of the respondent’s past or present lawyers.