Login
Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
In what appears to be a seemingly endless legal battle, a Parramatta boutique law firm has been dragged through yet another hearing with a man it provided supervised legal training to.
Kailash Lawyers, a firm that specialises in property, business and commercial matters, has already appeared and won proceedings in the Fair Work Commission, the Federal Court and the High Court, but the vengeful training lawyer behind it all has not yet finished.
In April 2019, Prateek Patial turned up at the firm unannounced for legal supervision after another firm ended his training prematurely. Director Amit Pall agreed to take him on under an agreement that explicitly stated it was not an employment relationship.
Just under a year and a half later, Patial left the firm after a heated discussion with Pall that ended with both phoning police.
Patial has since dragged the firm through court after court to allege the agreement was a “sham and unfair” and must be set aside. He also sought relief, including damages for professional negligence.
In one of the more recent proceedings, Justice Robert Bromwich of the Federal Court threw out two applications for leave to appeal – one in the Federal Circuit and Family Court and the other in the Federal Court – because both were “doomed to fail”.
Now, Kailash Lawyers has applied to the NSW Supreme Court to have proceedings initiated in the District Court transferred to the Supreme Court and transferred again to the Federal Court. It would then join up with a number of proceedings on foot in the higher court.
Patial has also brought a motion to strike out Kailash Lawyer’s defence because it was filed out of time, along with sanctions against the firm and Pall for allegedly “misleading the court” and breaching claimed statutory and professional obligations.
Dealing first with Patial’s motion, acting Justice Monika Schmidt said the orders he sought “cannot be justly made”.
For one thing, the defence may have been filed out of time, but it was filed after leave was given by a registrar. Despite this, Patial still claimed the defence was filed without leave, it was misleading and vexatious, and contained false denials of key facts.
Patial’s argument also included a claim the defence unfairly prejudiced him, but Justice Schmidt said it could not be accepted given the lengthy litigious history between the two.
“While delay which precludes proceedings being fairly determined can establish an abuse of process, the short delay which Patial relies on cannot fall into that category,” Justice Schmidt said.
“Patial’s reply and the affidavits he has already sworn establish that he is well able to advance his evidentiary case about the matters in issue in these proceedings, despite that delay.”
Patial attempted to resist the transfer application on the grounds it was allegedly without merit, “devoid of any factual or legal foundation” and involved a misuse of the court’s processes. He also claimed the Federal Court did not have jurisdiction.
He also claimed Kailash Lawyers was seeking to leverage his self-represented status by “increasing procedural complexity and costs”.
“But it must be noted that it is Patial who is legally trained, who has not accepted that he is not entitled in the state proceedings to further pursue his claimed employment, despite decisions to the contrary, by which he is bound,” Justice Schmidt said.
Contrary to his argument, Justice Schmidt said it would minimise costs and time required for the hearing of the various proceedings if they were transferred into the one court. This is especially as all were brought “as the result of the same agreement and dealings”.
The case is Patial v Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 219 (21 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
