Login
Court pushes for final hearing of negligence claim against law firm
Following several delays, an “irresponsible” timetabling submission, and an “unceasing stream” of allegations of judicial corruption, a Supreme Court has fixed a final hearing date in a client’s negligence claim against a boutique commercial law firm.
Naomi Neilson
Brian Kearney, a former client of Yates Beaggi Lawyers, brought a claim for negligence over allegations his solicitors failed to obtain orders, get records in a timely manner, and inform him of an offer of compromise made by a company he was once director of.
Kearney has claimed damages for psychiatric illness, which he said allegedly led to chronic cognitive and functional impairment.
Attempting to move the matter through to a final fixed hearing hit several roadblocks, with Kearney having claimed his psychiatric and other medical circumstances meant he was “unable to proceed”.
The client also claimed pre-trial directions were procedurally unfair to him and alleged various judges, registrars and court staff have acted “wrongfully” as part of a “Supreme Court cover-up plan”.
“The last mentioned point is one instance in an unceasing stream of unsupported allegations of judicial corruption that have emanated from the plaintiff throughout the proceedings,” Justice Desmond Fagan said in his written reasons, published earlier this week.
Yates Beaggi Lawyers advanced a stay application and claimed Kearney misrepresented his psychiatric condition on several occasions. This overlaps with the “major issue” in the substantive proceeding, being the damages for alleged psychiatric injury.
When it became apparent to the court the stay application would take up “significant further hearing time”, Justice Fagan proposed to allocate 10 days for a final fixed hearing in April 2025.
Kearney opposed this on the grounds he would need “35 days, not 10”, that interlocutory issues remain outstanding and should be resolved before a final hearing, and his unnamed barrister would be unavailable for April because “he’s got big hearings coming up”.
Justice Fagan said it would be “irresponsible” to set aside 35 days, particularly on the opinion of someone who has “demonstrated … a limited understanding of litigation procedure”.
Kearney’s breakdown of his 35-day estimate was “made up of inordinate multi-day cross-examination by both the plaintiff and the defendants of the opposite parties’ witnesses”.
As for the disputes about ongoing issues, Justice Fagan said he does not intend to have them resolved before the final hearing because there would be no utility in doing so. He said Kearney “may well seek to change it again at the commencement of or during the hearing”.
The unnamed barrister also caused some confusion, with Kearney refusing to identify the person he claimed to be consulting.
Justice Fagan noted that if Kearney seeks to vacate the final hearing on the basis of his psychiatric disorders, the court would consider staying the proceedings until a tutor can be engaged to assist him.
The case is Kearney v Amirbeaggi [2025] NSWSC 147.
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
