Login
Court hears wild allegation law firm hired hitman
Absurd claims were made as part of a Victorian man’s vendetta against his legal representatives, including a wild suggestion his barrister’s former firm hired a hitman to shoot him at a train station.
Naomi Neilson
Williams James Mc Vey’s allegations of negligence levelled against three firms and two lawyers, including a deceased woman, were riddled with incoherent, absurd and opaque submissions, Victorian Supreme Court’s Associate Justice Caroline Goulden said.
As far as the defendants could tell, Mc Vey alleged they were professionally negligent in their handling of an employment case and this cost him wages, entitlements, and the opportunity to claim financial benefits, including compensation for other legal wrongs.
Solicitor Anthony Bullard and his firm, Bullards Solicitors, were named in the lawsuit because he was appointed litigation guardian.
Mc Vey also named a representative of the deceased estate of solicitor Katherine Wilson, her former firm Richmond and Bennison Lawyers, and the firm she set up, Melbourne Injury Lawyers.
In one of the more sensational claims, Mc Vey said the counsel he retained through the Victorian Pro Bono Assistance Scheme to run the case against the defendants had withdrawn because there was a conflict of interest arising from the counsel’s former law firm.
This conflict was because the firm allegedly “hired a person to shoot him at Kensington railway station” and a former employee of the firm caused assets to go “missing” from his father’s estate. It is unclear whether Mc Vey or the counsel were the victim of the alleged hitman.
A submission sent a month later was also “entirely incoherent” and made further absurd allegations, including that a magistrate “has abused and victimised me in my common law rights in common law”.
The submission also included “slabs” of text from legal textbooks.
The amended statement of claim made allegations of unidentified people engaging in criminal conduct, the tampering of court material, interference by a legal practitioner, and the false filing of claims by Bullard without Mc Vey’s knowledge or signature.
None of the claims were particularised, the court found.
Associate Justice Goulden said the defendants “quite fairly” complained the amended statement of claim failed to disclose material facts “by which the scope and content of the said duties could be established” or how and when their duties arose.
Gilchrist Connell, the firm assisting Richmond and Bennison Lawyers, attempted to assist Mc Vey by suggesting “in detail” how certain deficiencies in the pleading may be fixed and all defendants repeatedly encouraged Mc Vey to obtain legal assistance.
Mc Vey told the court and the defendants his pleading was not deficient and he did not intend to amend the pleading any further.
“I am, accordingly, satisfied there is no realistic prospect that the plaintiff will be able to make any further amendments to his pleading such that it articulates a cause of action that enjoys a real prospect of success,” Associate Justice Goulden said.
The defendants sought summary judgment or, in the alternative, the striking out of the amended statement of claim.
Associate Justice Goulden ordered to dismiss the proceedings and Mc Vey to pay costs on a standard basis.
“It would be … unfair and contrary to the overarching purpose under the [Civil Procedure Act 2010] to permit the plaintiff to continue to subject the defendants to significant cost, time and inconvenience in having to respond to numerous iterations of a voluminous and incoherent pleading,” Associate Justice Goulden said.
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
