Login
NSW man claims counsel ‘bribed’ him with golf membership
A disgruntled man with a decades-long vendetta against members of the legal profession has accused his former barrister of allegedly “bribing” him with golf clubs and a membership to settle his proceedings.
Naomi Neilson
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create a free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
Since 1998, Nicholas Westwood and his now-deceased mother have pursued disciplinary action against two barristers and a solicitor with GH Healey & Co over their alleged misconduct during his 1994–1997 proceedings against a letting agent and home owner.
Over the years, his complaint has expanded to include the Legal Services Commissioner, the NSW Bar Association, and the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). Three others involved in Westwood’s original complaints have since died.
One of Westwood’s chief allegations was that one barrister pulled him aside during the hearing and allegedly handed him a $3,000 cheque to “blackmail” him into accepting a settlement. The amount was a reference to new golf clubs and a membership, he claimed.
Westwood alleged the other lawyers were negligent when preparing his case and in pressuring him to settle in 1997.
The complaints have been knocked back a few times, including in 2010 when the Legal Services Commissioner said he could “not find any negligence” by Westwood’s legal team and would not reopen a case that was, at that point, more than 13 years old.
In the most recent proceedings before the NSW Supreme Court, the Legal Services Commissioner, the NSW Bar Association, ICAC, GH Healey & Co, and a barrister requested that the new proceedings be summarily dismissed or the statement of claim be struck out.
Justice Tim Faulkner said there was “no question that the statement of claim has to be struck out”, given it is not in a form “which permits the case fairly to be prepared for hearing by the parties”.
The Legal Services Commissioner submitted the evidence demonstrates Westwood’s objective in making the complaints “was to obtain compensation for perceived loss”, and were not complaints about disciplinary matters it could then deal with.
Much like the commissioner, the NSW Bar submitted the “fatal deficiencies” in Westwood’s case are clear in the statement of claim.
The barrister, who worked on the proceedings but handed over his brief before the hearing commenced in June 1997, said there was no allegation of any contract between himself and Westwood, “and therefore, any claim based on breach of contract is hopeless”.
Justice Faulkner said that even with “extreme caution and having regard to Westwood’s position as an unrepresented plaintiff”, his claims “are so obviously untenable that they cannot possibly succeed”, and the only appropriate course is to dismiss the proceedings.
Despite submissions from some of the defendants, Justice Faulkner said it was not appropriate and there was not enough evidence to find Westwood’s proceedings were frivolous and vexatious.
The case is Westwood v Gulliver & Ors [2024] NSWSC 1323 (22 October 2024).
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
