Patial v Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd trading as Kailash Lawyers and Consultants

1. The application made by the respondents for the referral of the applicant to the Legal Services Commissioner is dismissed.
2. The application made by the applicant for the referral of the respondents and their legal representatives to the Legal Services Commissioner is dismissed. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

GOODMAN J 1 The history of this proceeding is set out in Patial v Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd trading as Kailash Lawyers and Consultants [2022] FCA 662 and Patial v Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd trading as Kailash Lawyers and Consultants (No 2) [2022] FCA 899 (Patial (No 2)). It is unnecessary to repeat it here. 2 In the course of submissions made for the purposes of Patial (No 2), the respondents sought an order from the Court referring the applicant to the Legal Services Commissioner by reason of his conduct in this proceeding and in particular with respect to various submissions made by him concerning the respondents and their legal advisers. In response, the applicant requested that the Court refer the respondents and their legal representatives to the Commissioner. 3 I decline to make the referrals sought, for the following reasons. 4 First, such referrals are unnecessary in circumstances where the parties are each capable of making such complaint to the Commissioner as they wish. 5 Secondly, such referrals are premature in circumstances where the proceeding has not concluded, with the result that a decision to refer (or not refer) either complaint might create a perception of pre-judgment on the part of the Court: see Anderson v Hassett (No 2) [2007] NSWSC 1444 at [16]. 6 Both applications should be dismissed. I will make orders accordingly. I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Goodman.