Patial v Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd trading as Kailash Lawyers and Consultants (No 3)

Case •

[2022] FCA 987

•

25 August 2022

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Patial v Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd trading as Kailash Lawyers and Consultants (No 3) [2022] FCA 987

File number(s): NSD 1016 of 2021
Judgment of: GOODMAN J
Date of judgment: 25 August 2022
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – applications by each party for a referral of the other party or parties to the Legal Services Commissioner – unnecessary when the parties can make complaints directly – premature when the proceeding has not concluded – applications dismissed
Cases cited:

Anderson v Hassett (No 2) [2007] NSWSC 1444

Patial v Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd trading as Kailash Lawyers and Consultants [2022] FCA 662

Patial v Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd trading as Kailash Lawyers and Consultants (No 2) [2022] FCA 899
Division: Fair Work Division
Registry: New South Wales
National Practice Area: Employment and Industrial Relations
Number of paragraphs: 6
Date of hearing: 25 August 2022
Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr V Misra
Solicitor for the Respondents: Kailash Lawyers and Consultants

ORDERS

NSD 1016 of 2021
BETWEEN:

PRATEEK PATIAL

Applicant
AND:

KAILASH LAWYERS PTY LTD ACN 604 582 550 TRADING AS KAILASH LAWYERS AND CONSULTANTS

First Respondent

KOALA INVESTMENT PROPERTY PTY LTD ACN 603 793 308 TRADING AS KOALA INVEST

Second Respondent

KUBER INVESTMENT GROUP PTY LTD ACN 602 779 199 TRADING AS KUBER PROJECTS

Third Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

GOODMAN J

DATE OF ORDER:

25 AUGUST 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application made by the respondents for the referral of the applicant to the Legal Services Commissioner is dismissed.

2.The application made by the applicant for the referral of the respondents and their legal representatives to the Legal Services Commissioner is dismissed.

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

GOODMAN J

  1. The history of this proceeding is set out in Patial v Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd trading as Kailash Lawyers and Consultants [2022] FCA 662 and Patial v Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd trading as Kailash Lawyers and Consultants (No 2) [2022] FCA 899 (Patial (No 2)). It is unnecessary to repeat it here.

  2. In the course of submissions made for the purposes of Patial (No 2), the respondents sought an order from the Court referring the applicant to the Legal Services Commissioner by reason of his conduct in this proceeding and in particular with respect to various submissions made by him concerning the respondents and their legal advisers. In response, the applicant requested that the Court refer the respondents and their legal representatives to the Commissioner.

  3. I decline to make the referrals sought, for the following reasons.

  4. First, such referrals are unnecessary in circumstances where the parties are each capable of making such complaint to the Commissioner as they wish.

  5. Secondly, such referrals are premature in circumstances where the proceeding has not concluded, with the result that a decision to refer (or not refer) either complaint might create a perception of pre-judgment on the part of the Court: see Anderson v Hassett (No 2) [2007] NSWSC 1444 at [16].

  6. Both applications should be dismissed. I will make orders accordingly.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Goodman.

Associate:       

Dated:       25 August 2022

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision

1

FSO (obo FSN) v Secretary, Department of Education [2023] NSWCATAD 15