Ruling says plaintiff should identify confidential info in solicitors’ possession
The Northern Territory’s Supreme Court has dismissed the plaintiff’s application to prevent the defendant’s law firm from continuing to represent her in the underlying proceedings, given the plaintiff’s insufficient identification of the confidential information in the solicitors’ possession.
In Calabro v Need [2026] NTSC 12, the plaintiff brought a claim against the defendant in October 2025. He asserted fraud, deceit, conversion and misappropriation of funds, breach of fiduciary duties and trust, unconscionable conduct, identity misuse, and interference with business reputation.
According to the plaintiff, while they were in a de facto relationship from 2007–19, the defendant took control of his financial and accounting records without proper authority and served as the contact person named for banks and the Australian Taxation Office. He said he faced rising business debts while deprived of control of his finances.
Per the plaintiff, from 2009–19, the defendant engaged in conduct that damaged his business for her benefit. Specifically, the defendant allegedly:
The plaintiff asked for damages and specific declarations. The defendant filed an interlocutory application for a summary dismissal or stay.
In December 2025, the plaintiff applied to restrain the defendant’s law firm from continuing to represent her in the proceedings. According to him, from 2009 to 2015/2016, the firm accessed confidential information when it acted for him in his business and financial affairs.
The plaintiff alleged that the confidential information received by the defendant’s lawyers might be relevant to or capable of use in the proceeding to his disadvantage, such that the court should stop the lawyers from continuing to act.
The Supreme Court of the Northern Territory dismissed the plaintiff’s application. The court deemed it difficult to ascertain the precise nature of the claim, which included few to no particulars.
To warrant the requested relief, the court ruled that the plaintiff should precisely identify the confidential information in the solicitors’ possession and the reason why that information might be relevant to the disputed issues and might be subject to misuse.
Given the serious consequences of stopping a solicitor from representing a party, the court said it was not enough for the plaintiff to generally allege that the defendant’s solicitor procured confidential information leading to a conflict in the proceedings and that the information might be misused.
