An “experienced litigant” known to South Australia’s Supreme Court as Mr Flowers has levelled a series of claims at some of the judges of the Family Court, solicitors, employees of the commissioner’s office and others that they have “conspired, and continue to conspire, to thwart his rightful claims in the Family Court”. 

In a judgement from the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, the Honourable Justice David Peek, the Honourable Justice Tim Stanley and the Honourable Justice David Lovell said that Mr Flowers “genuinely and sincerely considers himself a victim of a conspiracy” that he would often mould evidence to fit.

“Mr Flowers was unable to accept the evidence, or even allow for the possibility that he might be wrong in his belief. When confronted with evidence that challenged his belief, he reframed the evidence rather than question his belief. His explanation was that it was all part of the ever-widening conspiracy,” the justices said in a judgement. 

Mr Flowers first complained to the Legal Profession Conduct Commission about the alleged misconduct of Mr Finlayson (first name was redacted) who briefly represented him at a trial in the Family Court. When the commissioner dismissed the complaint, Mr Flowers instituted a private complaint before the disciplinary tribunal. 

The complaint filed by Mr Finlayson related to alleged conduct between August and September 2014, which was later amended to include allegations of unprofessional conduct occurring after September 2014. Generally, the charges alleged that Mr Finlayson breached terms of his retainer and charged above the agreed figure. 

Mr Flowers also submitted that Mr Finlayson had been incompetent in his legal representation, had failed to comply with trust account regulations, had been misleading and that he had been dishonest. After 15 days of trial spread out over a number of years, the disciplinary tribunal found the solicitor not guilty of any charges.

In an appeal filed before the Full Court of the Supreme Court, Mr Flowers alleged that the tribunal failed to afford him procedural fairness and had invalidly appointed tribunal judges. Mr Flowers further submitted that the tribunal erred in its adverse finding of the credibility of his evidence and erred in reaching certain decisions. 

On his allegation that the tribunal’s decision to dismiss charges was obtained through fraud, the Full Court wrote: “Mr Flowers has not established that the tribunal palpably misused its advantage or that the findings are glaringly improbable. Mr Flowers has been unable to point to any error in which the tribunal conducted the hearing or reached its evidence.” 

VIEW ALL

The justices said Mr Flower’s specific complaints “were not made clear” in many instances. He was unable to articulate, for example, what the precise problem he had with Mr Finlayson’s trial books or how the problem should be addressed: “He did not make clear what steps he expected Mr Finlayson to take.”