You may not remember all the legal wrangling between BTL and Christine Perriot back in 2007, but Telemedia does, and the telecom provider was back in court today, pursuing a matter not against Perriot, but her attorney, Lois Young. Last year the company made a legal challenge, declaring that Young cannot be permitted to represent Perriot in her case against Telemedia because it is a conflict of interest. A conflict because young had been BTL’s attorney for 18 years In July of last year, Justice John Muria found that there was no conflict sufficient to prevent Young from acting as Perriot’s attorney. Today the Court of Appeals set aside that judgment and granted Telemedia an injunction preventing Young from acting for Perriot in this matter. Janelle Chanona has more.
Lois Young,
“I’m disappointed, very disappointed and the truth of the matter Janelle is I have no confidential information. That’s what so hurtful.”
Janelle Chanona Reporting,
This morning the Justices of the Court of Appeal found that Senior Counsel Lois Young could no longer represent former Communication Union’s Executive Christine Perriott. The context of the case is that Lois Young was representing Perriott in her lawsuit against Telemedia over compensation following Perriott’s dismissal from the company. The lawyers for Telemedia had asserted that during the case Young had asked for disclosure of two letters written by herself in October 2004. Telemedia’s attorneys said the only way Young knew about those letters is because at the time she was the company’s counsel and had been secretary to the Board of Directors. Telemedia’s attorneys asserted that Young had breached her legal duty to maintain confidentiality and applied for interlocutory injunction against Young asking the judge to restrain Young from in anyway acting, representing, advising, or assisting Christine Perriott. Justice Muria denied the application but this morning the Justices of the Court of Appeal set aside that decision and granted the injunction.
Andrew Marshalleck, Attorney for Telemedia
“It was granted on the basis that BTL claims that Lois Young gained confidential information in the course of acting for them for some years 18 years and that there is a significant risk that that confidential information would be used against them on behalf of Miss Perriott.”
Lois Young,
“They waited until they got the opportunity where severance pay was raised and this disclosure issue came up, putting part of what I had advised them on in relation to severance, refused to put in the other part, put it in as though in a way if you read the documents that they filed, as though to say you advised us that we don’t have to pay severance and now you are claiming severance for Christine Perriott when they knew fully well that I had advised them that if the decision of Justice Denys Barrow that severance pay is payable and they didn’t put in that portion of it. So they waited until that to get me off.”
Janelle Chanona,
So you’re saying they set you up, basically?
Lois Young,
“Well I should have ignored them really and truly what they said in the pleadings. It was as though, well client came to me and she said Miss Lois look at what they are saying, they are saying that you advised them not to pay severance and now you’re claiming severance. It was just one way of getting me off the case.”
Andrew Marshalleck,
“It is a message that the courts will be vigilant to protect confidential information and the real purpose that serves is to give the public comfort in the knowledge that when they sit to instruct an attorney, they can speak freely and frankly and that the court will act to protect that information even in the case of an influential attorney.”
Janelle Chanona,
This morning Ms. Lois told us that she was only responding to something that had already been introduced by Telemedia, specifically those two letters of October 2004. She is saying basically that it was partly disclosed and she was asking for full disclosure.
Andrew Marshalleck,
“The problem didn’t arise out of the request of disclosure. The problem arose out of the manner in which it was done. In making the request she effected a number of breaches of information that she clearly had in her possession and she was making the request on behalf of Ms. Perriott so that she was in effect using the information, BTL’s own information against them.”
Janelle Chanona,
Beyond the Christine Perriott case, do you think Telemedia will attempt to use today’s ruling to get you separated from other litigation involving the company that you are involved with?
Lois Young,
“They might feel themselves inflated with strength after this and try to do that. We’ll see. There is nothing much they can do in terms of the kind of litigation they have which is not wanting to pay their taxes and fighting for the settlement deeds here and there. So there is not much they can say that I know about that when it comes to doing that. But they might who knows.”
The justices have also ordered that Lois Young pays Telemedia’s costs both here at the Court of Appeal and in the Supreme Court. That figure is estimated at $30,000. From the Court of Appeal I am Janelle Chanona.
Today’s ruling is an interim injunction. It is expected that Telemedia will seek a permanent ruling against Young in the Supreme Court. No date has been set for the substantive case between Perriott and Telemedia. That matter will be heard by Justice John Muria.
