Login
Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
A solicitor and counsel caught up in almost two decades of litigation have been accused of a number of sensational allegations, including attempting to mislead a court and “mischievous behaviour”.
After his litigation over property fell apart, McFarlane – whose first name was not published in the judgment – set his sights on the solicitor and counsel on the other side and two conveyancers.
Among his accusations was an allegation of a conspiracy to mislead the court, false and misleading information provided to the Legal Practitioners Conduct Board, aiding of a witness, deception, contravention of disclosure rules, and “mischievous behaviour”.
The disciplinary board found there had been no unsatisfactory or unprofessional conduct on the part of the two legal practitioners.
This then led to McFarlane pursuing a charge against the commissioner of the board alleging mishandling of the complaints. It was dismissed and the subject of an unsuccessful appeal.
In a decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia, Justice Laura Stein set out that these allegations had also been heard and dismissed by the District Court, along with an interlocutory application seeking a stay of judgment, orders and warrants for the property.
The District Court judge said he did not think McFarlane had “articulated anything” to satisfy the court that a registrar should be directed to issue a summons for contempt against the lawyers and conveyancers.
Before Justice Stein, McFarlane attempted to appeal the District Court’s findings on the grounds of jurisdictional error and a failure to apply both the doctrine of precedent and the required level of scrutiny.
However, in refusing an extension of time, leave to appeal and dismissing the appeal, Justice Stein said there was “no evidence” to support reasonable grounds to suspect the alleged contempt.
“The appellant seeks via these proceedings to reagitate issues which have already been finally determined in different forums and on different occasions, including by the Court of Appeal,” the judge said.
Justice Stein added there was “no persuasive or cogent submissions on evidence” to support any of McFarlane’s other grounds of appeal.
The case is: Macfarlane v Reffold [2025] SASC 43 (28 March 2025)
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
Get breaking news
Naomi Neilson
