The applicant sought to enforce an indemnity agreement relating to environmental contamination, requesting that it be defended at the respondents' expense by counsel taking instructions from the applicant rather than the respondents.
The applicant argued that a conflict of interest existed because the sole officer and director of the indemnifying corporations was also the directing mind of the plaintiff corporation in the underlying action.
The court dismissed the application, finding no direct conflict of interest that would deprive the indemnifying parties of their right to direct the defence, as the director was not acting as counsel and the parties' interests were not directly adverse regarding the indemnity.
