Both men were associated with People Shop, a company owned by Kuksal that also traded as a law firm known as Erudite Legal.

Lulu Xu, the third defendant, was at one time a director but neither she nor Kuksal had legal qualifications or held a practising certificate.

In a decision last September, Kuksal was said to have used his furniture company, Apex Logistics Solutions, to hold customers’ furniture for ransom and send threatening letters from Erudite Legal.

Ansell was Erudite Legal’s principal solicitor, but his practising certificate for the 2022–23 year was not renewed because the board determined he was “not a person of good fame or character”.

Interlocutory orders restraining all three from “communicating in a manner that associates them” with Erudite Legal was granted by Justice Jacinta Forbes in October 2022.

The board intended to make those orders permanent.

Before Justice Peter Gorton of the Victorian Supreme Court could determine the board’s application, the defendants sought for him to recuse himself and requested the proceedings be stayed pending the determination of proceedings brought by Kuksal against the board.

VIEW ALL

The Supreme Court heard Kuksal had already made 10 recusal applications, with the most recent being made after a complaint to the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC) about the conduct of the board and Justice Gorton.

The complaint to IBAC alleged that by Justice Gorton making “recklessly or maliciously” wrong decisions in related proceedings, he enabled the board to engage in lawful behaviour.

“[Kuksal] said that he was, expressly or by effect, alleging criminal conduct on my part that had caused him loss, and that he would, in due course, be seeking damages from me,” Justice Gorton said.

Justice Gorton said he has not “acted unfairly” to the defendants and “do not accept their characterisation of my conduct”.

“If they take the view that I have erred in my findings or my approach in a way that matters, that is something they are free to take up on appeal. They have not appealed any of my earlier recusals of their applications that I recuse myself,” Justice Gorton said.

“I am not satisfied that the fair-minded lay observer might think that I might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the issues.”

The defendants also sought subpoenas against the board for material “generated, shared or received” about their case.

This is in addition to a request for material from the chief commissioner of Victoria Police for an unrelated Magistrates Court matter.

Kuksal, Ansell and Xu submitted that Justice Gorton could only refuse to issue the subpoenas, “if I am satisfied that they are on, on their face, so clearly an abuse of process that their issue would bring the administration of justice into disrepute”.

The purpose of the subpoena to the board is to support the defendants’ allegations the board acted “maliciously and unlawfully” in the cancellation or revocation of Ansell’s practising certificate, or its failure to renew the certificate.

They alleged the decision not to renew was “invalid”.

Justice Gorton said the current proceeding does not raise those issues for determination and rejected their request.

“In my view, it is clear beyond any sensible argument that if a lawyer, like Ansell, has had his practising certificate cancelled or revoked or not renewed by the board, then that person is thereafter not entitled to practice,” Justice Gorton said.

“This proceeding is not an inquiry into the conduct of the board, the police, the Magistrates Court.

“Any attempt by the defendants to raise those matters in this proceeding could only unnecessarily and improperly distract from the issues that are raised in this proceeding and cause unnecessary cost and delays for all concerned.”