Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
A Townsville firm was given a notice to produce documents relating to an investigation into its alleged claim farming, including material that could potentially link it to a deregistered law firm.
Rapid Legal Solutions and its director, John Francis Windridge, have attempted to quash an investigation by the state of Queensland, on behalf of the Motor Accident Insurance Commission (MAIC), into allegations of an exploitative practice known as “claim farming”.
The unethical practice involves third parties using unsolicited and high-pressure marketing strategies to solicit personal information from individuals following accidents, injuries, or abuse. The information is on-sold to lawyers and claim management services.
In March 2023, the MAIC contacted Windridge to discuss recent changes it had noticed in the volume and type of claims that had been lodged in the 12 months between January 2022 and 2023.
Following discussions, MAIC alleged it had information to suggest Rapid Legal may have a referral arrangement or business development model that would infringe on the claim-farming provisions within the Motor Accident Insurance (MAI) Act 1994.
At the time of writing, neither Rapid Legal nor Windridge have been charged with any offence under the MAI Act.
According to a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland, the investigation will look into any links between the firm and Michael Kemp, Patrick Lafferty, and Serious Injuries Solicitors. The latter was served with a notice of deregistration in December 2024.
A notice to produce has sought a range of documents, including an employment agreement, contract, record of communication, or other documents relating to financial or alternative arrangements for the provision of services by Kemp to Rapid Legal Solutions.
It also sought a record of payments to Kemp since December 2019.
Rapid Legal Solutions and Windridge unsuccessfully resisted, submitting that part 5b of the MAI Act – which allows for special investigations – is incompatible with the Constitution.
The argument was first heard in the High Court but remitted back to the Supreme Court by Justice Robert Beech-Jones in June 2025.
Specifically, Rapid Legal Solutions and Windridge contended part 5b is wholly invalid because “it impermissibly interferes with the capacity of state courts to exercise federal jurisdiction … by operating to distort the common law system of adversarial trial”.
They added the part establishes a scheme “whereby state courts that hear trials of claim farming offences are co-opted into a process that is wholly repugnant or incompatible with their defining characteristics as repositories of federal jurisdiction”.
The plaintiffs relied on Kable, which considered the provision of the Community Protection Act 1994 (NSW) and whether it empowered the Supreme Court of NSW to make an order for the detention of a specified person in prison for a specified period if it was satisfied the person was more likely than not to commit a serious act of violence.
The High Court ruled the act was invalid, with three justices finding the exercise of jurisdiction under the act was incompatible with the integrity, independence, and impartiality of the Supreme Court.
In Emmerson, the High Court described the legislation in Kable as incompatible with constitutional integrity “because the legislation drew the court into implementing what was essentially a political decision or government policy that Kable should be detained, without the benefit of ordinary judicial process”.
The firm said it should also apply to the claim-farming provisions “because the legislation requires a state court to proceed in a way that offends its institutional integrity and judicial independence”.
Citation: Rapid Legal Solutions Pty Ltd v State of Queensland [2026] QSC 88.
Want to see more stories from trusted news sources?
Make Lawyers Weekly a preferred news source on Google.
Click here to add Lawyers Weekly as a preferred news source.
