Login
Victorian solicitor cannot avoid disciplinary hearing for long, judge rules
Armed with a colleague’s “dysfunctional” medical condition and an application that contradicted itself, a banned Victorian lawyer behind the People Shop chaos attempted to delay an order to permanently restrain him from engaging in legal practice.
Naomi Neilson
Victorian Supreme Court. Source: Google Maps.
Following numerous attempts to bring proceedings to a standstill, solicitor Peter Ansell – along with co-defendants and non-lawyers Shivesh Kuksal and Lulu Xu – tried to delay the Victorian Legal Service Board’s application to restrain him from practising.
In an originating application filed last February, the board sought an injunction to restrain Ansell from engaging in legal practice. The November prior, he was refused a practising certificate after the board determined he was “not a person of good fame and character”.
In the same application, the board also sought final relief to prevent Kuksal and Xu from using Euridite email addresses, sending or issuing correspondence on behalf of the purported law practice, or representing they were managing its affairs.
The day before the hearing was to be held earlier this month, Kuksal emailed Justice Peter Gorton’s chambers to request an adjournment because a “medical issue” had rendered him “dysfunctional”.
His application also claimed this dysfunction prevented him from filing affidavits and written submissions by the July deadlines.
Kuksal was told to appear at the hearing either in person or online to make the application and directed to have his doctor join, but he told the court the medical practitioner “did not work on Thursdays”.
Less than an hour before the trial was due to commence, Xu sent an affidavit signed by Ansell to support the adjournment application.
In this affidavit, the defendants said that due to Kuksal’s illness, they have been unable to commence proceedings against the Independent Broad-based Anti-Corruption Commission (IBAC) for its alleged failure to make a preliminary decision in respect of a complaint they made about Justice Gorton and a request that he be recused.
When asked why he had not met the July deadlines, Kuksal gave an “unsatisfactory explanation” that he had made a “deliberate decision” not to do so until Justice Gorton recused himself.
Kuksal added he was “confident there were solid grounds”.
When Ansell appeared before Justice Gorton, he explained his expertise was in wills and conveyancing, not litigation, so he was dependent on Kuksal to provide him with “factual information to defend the claims” and to present the “necessary legal argument”.
Ansell added he did not have the “necessary ability to argue very complicated matters before the court” without Kuksal’s input.
However, Ansell then went on to say he, Kuksal, and Xu had been working together for quite some time, including the day before.
“The statements were somewhat in conflict with Kuksal’s assertion he had been disabled with illness in the prior fortnight.
“When asked, Ansell then clarified that Kuksal hadn’t been able ‘to participate as he normally would’, that is, that Kuksal had not been able to work the ’20 hours a day’ he normally would,” Justice Gorton said.
When Justice Gorton put it to Ansell that his claims could continue even if Kuksal and Xu’s were adjourned, Ansell resisted this.
“In circumstances where it has always been clear that the allegation against Ansell is that he engaged in legal practice without a practising certificate, and Ansell has been on notice of the trial date, I did not consider this to be a proper reason for a delay,” Justice Gorton said.
“Ansell should know what he has done and why and be able to present argument on whether it was a breach … of the Uniform Law.
Ansell’s hearing was only postponed a few days.
Given that Kuksal and Xu only recently learnt they would face allegations they had also contravened the Uniform Law, Justice Gorton allowed them an adjournment until 20 August.
“The adjournment is being given to allow Xu and Kuksal to reflect upon whether the conduct they engaged in contravened … the Uniform Law and to develop arguments,” Justice Gorton said.
More to come.
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
