LCRO 24/2017 HC v DASH (24 January 2020) [pdf, 216 KB]
...2016. [17] In providing a summary of Das’s position, his counsel submitted that: (a) Mr HC had acted for multiple parties on the same (or interrelated) transactions, when the parties had divergent interests and there was clearly more than a negligible risk of him being unable to discharge his obligations to all parties; and (b) Mr HC had failed to obtain informed consent and failed to advise the parties to obtain independent legal advice; and 6 (c) it would have been appar...