Keddies must be kidding

New law year blasts off with contempt trial of three Keddies' partners … Cheque signed by Roulstone prime facie a breach of court order

After another round of spatting in the NSW Supremes between Justice Michael Adams and barrister Chris Branson, the hearing of contempt allegation against the Keddies Three has been set for February 3.

It is alleged by Sydney solicitor Stephen Firth, acting for a bunch of disaffected former Keddies' clients who have brought overcharging and breach of contract cases, that Tony Barakat, Scott Roulstone and Russell Keddie breached an injunction ordered by Adams on November 24.

The injunction sought to prevent Keddies or its agents communicating with former clients who were suing them in the District Court.

Today Adams inquired when the defendants would be ready to answer the contempt charges.

Branson, for the Keddies Three said: 

"I have not paid meticulous attention to what was necessary to meet the charge."  

The judge was amazed at this response, querying why a barrister acting for three solicitors on contempt of court charges would not have properly prioritised this matter.

Robert Stitt QC, for Firth and plaintiff clients, stressed the urgency in bringing the matter on for a hearing.

Any delay in proceedings would make a "solemn farce" of the injunction.

Stitt also accused the defence of stalling on a notice to produce documents, which had been filed on December 8.

He described Branson's reluctance to meet the notice to produce as part of their "same old story" of attempting to delay proceedings.

A further question arising from today's hearing was whether a cheque made out to a former Keddies' client, Xi Li, was evidence of contempt.

The cheque was signed by Scott Roulstone and drawn on a joint account held in the name of all three Keddies' partners.

Stitt submitted that this evidence implicated all three Keddies' partners in an attempt to compromise the proceedings by paying-out a so-called "affected client".

Such a communication would be contrary to the injunction.

Justice Adams was concerned about the current formulation of the contempt charges.

He described them as "ambiguous" on the matter of whether Barakat and Keddie consented to drawing the cheque.

The judge said he would have difficulty finding Barakat and Keddie complicit in the transaction if Roulstone merely possessed some "general authority" to act on their behalf by drawing on the joint account.

Adams recommended that Stitt amend the charges to include "knowledge and agreement" as the evidentiary basis for the allegation against Barakat and Keddie.

Seventeen days after the contempt hearing, the court will come back to the issue of the injunction and the damages claimed by Firth arising from the interference with his clients. That has been listed for five days. 

See previous report: "Grave disapproval" of Keddies. 

From Brigit Morris in Court 12B, Queens Square