Product Detail

Vol 33 No 2 June-August 2019

Duty of confidentiality to opposing party resulting from settlement negotiations
By Anton Trichardt
 
A legal practitioner may have a duty of confidentiality to the client of an opposing practitioner. This is not necessarily at the forefront of a practitioner’s mind when pursuing the interests of his or her own client. The recent Singaporean High Court decision in Wan Hoe Keet v LVM Law Chambers LLC (Wan Hoe Keet), where a firm of solicitors was restrained from acting further for a claimant in a proceeding because they were found to have been in breach of this duty, is a timely reminder of the ambit of negotiation and settlement confidentiality and the duties that may flow from it. A brief review of the legal position in some Anglo-common law jurisdictions, in particular in Australia, is apposite.
 
 
Contract law in the cases: 2018 in review. Part 1 of 3
By Jeffrey Goldberger
 
The unconscionable conduct provisions in the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) and in the ASIC Act represent one of the most significant reforms to commercial law since the introduction of the misleading and deceptive conduct regime in the Trade Practices Act of 1974.
  • Duty of confidentiality to opposing party resulting from settlement negotiations
    By Anton Trichardt
    page 3
  • Contract law in the cases: 2018 in review. Part 1 of 3
    By Jeffrey Goldberger
    page 9
  • Member Price: $0.00
    Non Member Price: $30.00
     
    Main File Type pdf
    © Copyright 2019 Commercial Law Association of Australia (CLA) |  Site by ICAN Solutions