Court File 15 October 2017

Our Barrister Tom Somers recommended early 2009 that we start two separate sets of proceedings against both our negligent lawyers Wilson Lawyers and against The Body Corporate for Goldieslie Park Community Titles Scheme.

The chairman Mr Rodney Bell was a property expert and the senior property Partner of McCullough Robertson Lawyers. As chairman he had an inherent responsibility to understand his responsibilities to their neighbours. The FOI file revealed the Body Corporate endured similar proceedings in 1995 against another developer whilst chairman. See FOI files and Independent property report by Mr William Purcell.

Mr Rodney Bell started proceedings against Wirkus for sport in 2005 as he knew the Original development Approval of GTP 1836 was obligated to provide Lot 1 an Easement. Legal access over the common property throughout the estate GTP 1836. The original manually drafted drawings prove Lot 1 proposed easement was not limited to the blurred sequence of events presented to the Brisbane City Council by James Noble – two separate Development Applications dated 10 March 1987 and 22 February 1988.

Please download and inspect the Wirkus Vs Wilson Lawyers Court file. You will discover many documents have been removed. Immediately after I discovered the second winning Judgement 4 April 2012 was missing from the file(that was never sealed by Justice Lyons) I complained to the Crime and Corruption Commission and the Queensland Parliamentary Crime and Corruption Committee.Soon afterward I discovered a simple search ‘Wirkus V Wilson lawyers’the Judgement appeared on the internet. The absurdity of this matter is that the Judgement articulates Wirkus was protected by IPA 1997 and the effects of indefeasible title. We won the proceeding’s but lost everything. ‘Nothing to see here’!

Another complete set of proceedings is not recorded in the Court file. After being forced into bankruptcy I submitted another Application to the Supreme Court to expose the obvious cronyism. I appeared before Chief Justice Paul de Jersey at the usual 10am ‘Call over’ he accused me of writing to him ‘seeking favour’! I sought a ‘closed hearing’ out of respect! I had discovered we had been swindled.

Further cronyism during proceedings in The Supreme Court and The Court of Appeal

Wirkus -v- The Body Corporate for Goldieslie Park Community Titles Scheme No 20924 Supreme Court Proceedings 7976108

I received a letter dated 19 April 2011, a letter of demand seeking payment $17,479.69 from DLA Phillips Fox lawyers acting on behalf of the developer of Lot 2 45 Goldieslie Road Indooroopilly Mr James Noble. I borrowed those funds from my brother and paid the account! On 27 September 2011 I received a refund cheque $17.45 from LEXON Insurance.

We refer to his Honour Justice McMurdo's decision on 22 October 2010 to dismiss your client's (Wirkus) application to join our client (James Noble) to these proceedings. As you know, in conjunction with dismissing your client's application to join our client his Honour also ordered that your client pay our client's costs of the failed application. Our client's costs of and incidental to defending your client's failed application, including the costs of briefing counsel to appear at the hearing on 7 October 2010

During the proceedings before Justice Phillip McMurdo 22 October 2010 there were three separate parties before his Honour. Our lawyersKathleen Dare and Associates and Barrister Mr Tom Somers who were insured by Lexon Insurance, Bartley Cohen and Associates was employed by Lexon Insurance to represent Wilson Lawyers against a claim of negligence and James Noble the Developer whoemployed Counsel to represent himself. Every lawyer including the Justice had a lifetime association with LEXON Insurance. I was the net beneficiary of the law, but cronyism ensured a loss.

Upon instigating these proceedings before Justice Phillip McMurdo, a year earlier whilst I was observing those initial proceedings from the gallery in the Courtroom, Justice Phillip McMurdo sought my attention declaring he had an association with and knew James Noble. He asked me if I had any issues with his declaration. I approved but what choice did I have? After years of litigation, you can imagine the costs involved. If I refused my family and I would still be burdened with the costs associated with that day. I trusted everyone; McMurdo was a Supreme Court Justice!

Please understand that Justice Peter Lyons as a Queens Counsel specialising in Planning and Property law managedboth sets of proceedings behind the scenes which means he must have also communicated with Justice Phillip McMurdo.

(1)    Wirkus -V- Wilson Lawyers and Wirkus.

(2)    Wirkus -v- The Body Corporate for Goldieslie Park Community Titles Scheme No 20924 (Supreme Court Proceedings 7976108)

Justice Peter Lyons obviously had an acute understanding of property law as the City of Brisbane Town Plan remained consistent with minor amendments from 19964 through to 1986. The document consisted of on average of 140 pages over 22 years, In 1978 the Minister for everything in Queensland ‘The Honourable Russell Hinze MP’ Included the iconic principle a ‘Transitional Section’ which clarified how the Town Plan would be treated when it would eventually be superseded! The suggestion that these property experts had no idea the ‘transitional section 22B of the 1978 Town Plan was instrumental in our proceedings is beyond ridiculous!

It is also obvious Lyons had communications with John Gallagher QC and his Junior Mark Johnston, the property experts who penned the misleading $30,000 ‘Opinion’ in 2009 on ‘indefeasible title’ and must have had a relationship with Justice McMurdo who found in Nobles favour when Lyons always knew Wirkus was protected by IPA 1997. Justice McMurdo was also the lead Justice in the Court of Appeal.These men are all the same age and had been advocates of the law since university. Please form your own opinion.

Advocates Immunity

No other industry treats the public with such distain. Pleasedownload documentation of ‘Hearsay’ legal fraternities Newsletter that the speaks for itself. Basically from 2004 through 2016 you could not sue a lawyer for negligence in Australia and be guaranteed a positive outcome. The entire industry was happy to oblige as ultimately the High Court decision in 2004 ensured any advocate of the law was immune for their actions bothin and out of a Court Room. Most Australian’s had no idea, and the industry kept quiet. Why would any member of the public start proceedings against a negligent lawyer if this evidence was common knowledge. Obviously, it would be to milk the Plaintiff of their savings.

The decision in 2016 that declared Advocates were now only immune for their actions or their conduct in a Courtroom really does not improve the public’s confidence in the industry if they understand our complaint.

Should a Justice collude with lawyers in a ‘Courtroom’ it is nearly impossible to seek remedy unless you’re acutely aware of statutory legislation and can supervise the outcome or if you’re rich and can afford to take the matter to a higher Court with new Counsel. This legislation cements corruption and there is no one to complain to. Our entire judicial system is broken.

Queensland does not have a Senate and our Governor’s position is purely ceremonial and cuts cake for a living. The Queen is dead. It is high time Australia becomes a Republic where these matters can be resolved legally.

ADVOCATES IMMUNITY

📁 Immunity

APPLICATION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT BY BCORPORATE

BANKRUPTCY APPLICATION RECEIVED FROM LEXON INSURANCE

MISSING APPLICATION FROM COURT FILE

ORIGINAL COURT FILE

TRANSCRIPTS