Login
Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
In the lead-up to another hearing in proceedings that have been inundated with recusal requests, adjournment applications, and late filings, a law firm has had to contend with yet another bid for more time.
In proceedings that have now been on foot for six years, a former client of Yates Beaggi Lawyers, Brian Kearney, has sought indemnity of certain legal costs, expenses, and alleged losses arising from what he claimed was his solicitor’s professional negligence during litigation.
On several occasions, the matter was listed before the NSW Supreme Court for final hearing, only for Kearney to make an adjournment application because of issues he was having with his mental health.
Last month, Justice Desmond Fagan set the matter down for late April and cautioned that if yet another adjournment application is made, he would consider staying proceedings until a tutor could be engaged.
Around this time, Kearney filed a motion in the Court of Appeal seeking expedition of his application for leave to appeal and his appeal, as well as an order that both matters would “be heard simultaneously”. He also sought to adduce fresh evidence into the appeal proceedings.
The appeal was related to decisions made by Justice Fagan and Chief Judge Ian Harrison, who initially presided over the matter but became unavailable sometime between August 2024 and February 2025.
At the commencement of the Court of Appeal hearing for his motion on 14 April, Kearney sought yet another adjournment, but Justice Jeremy Kirk rejected this. According to his recent decision, Kearney walked out of the courtroom and did not provide evidence on the motion.
Justice Kirk said Kearney tendered “no evidence” in support of this new adjournment application, but heard a claim that Kearney had “booked a conference” with an unnamed barrister on Wednesday, 16 April. He was not prepared to identify the barrister when asked.
Kearney also submitted he wanted further time to file material, but in light of his preparation of a 45-page draft grounds of appeal document, Justice Kirk said he would not accept Kearney “has had insufficient time or capacity to prepare” the relevant documents.
“Kearney’s justifications do not offer any significant support to his adjournment application. And there are substantial factors which militated against granting it,” Justice Kirk said.
As for his request for a concurrent hearing, Justice Kirk said it was appropriate that this matter be addressed by the court at the same time as the consideration of the application for leave to appeal.
The case is Kearney v Amirbeaggi (No 2) [2025] NSWCA 73.
We're evolving — and so should your insights. Heads up — Lawyers Weekly is going premium from 1 May for just $5 a month. Stay informed without missing a beat. More information coming soon.
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
