Lexon Insurance, the professional indemnifying insurance company of Queensland lawyers that is owned by the Queensland Law Society and is located in a tax haven ‘Singapore’.
Lexon Insurance isrotten to the core! I base this opinion on my own experience and their Managing Director’s conduct throughout our proceedings against a negligent law firm ‘Wilson Lawyers’. I don’t hold a grudge against Wilson Lawyers as the managing director of Wilson’s is of good character and these instances occur when staff make genuine errors. Mr Wilson referred me to his ‘Easement Expert’ which I thought was factual however his only qualificationwas his law degree and that he was capable of reading. In other words, law firms claim expertise, but you are billed for their time exploring an issue when often they have little idea. It makes a mockery of the idea when at the end of an account lawyers will add on a fee - a free lunch, for ‘Care and Consideration’!
In early 2010 as proceedings matured it had become obvious serious transgressions had occurred with theGroup Title plan registration GTP1836 at 43A Goldieslie Road, Indooroopilly. Why were thereso many errors with the legal documentsat the Brisbane CityCouncil?
1) How is it possible that a home built in 1947 did not have legal access to a street, It had a driveway however ithad a brick fence installed across the original driveway frontage – the property boundary at the frontage abuttingGoldieslie Road? The Developer was a lawyer?
2) Why was the Lot 2subdivision signed off as completed with all conditions met by the Brisbane City Council Town Clerk
3) Why didthe Department of Natural Resources issue titles without(Lot 1) 45 Goldieslie Road Indooroopilly having its access easement registered? The DeveloperJames Noble had to be held accountable after all he collected $42,000 in 1988! It turns out everyone involved trusted the lawyer!
At the time I remember asking Kathleen Dare and she quickly came to the defence of the legalprofession stating ‘How can you prove Jim was acting as a lawyer when it was his development company Ibenbah Pty Ltd that had the issue! I thought it was a no – brainer! Is the Pope Catholic? Jim was a lawyer; he practised law every day! Kathleen stated it was difficult to prove!
Soon after instigating these proceedings before Justice Phillip McMurdo whilst observing from the gallery in the Courtroom, Justice 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!
One day I received a phone call from Ms. Kathleen Dare stating we could inspect records and Jim’s office; we were informed Jim had a copy of the unregistered Easement Document. I thought that was great news until I learned that it could not be registered because of ‘Indefeasible title’. The Group Title plan had been registered! Things didn’t add up, why would the Developer of the estate have in his possession the unregistered easement documents, he was a lawyer and he happened to be a lawyer?
Ultimately the application was heard by his Honour Justice McMurdo on 22 October 2010. The Court room was filed with three separate teams of lawyers.Our lawyers Ms. Kathleen Dare and Barrister Tom Somers, Lexon Insurance Lawyers Bartley Cohen and Associates and James Noble’s lawyers.Arguments were heard over a four-hour period when ultimately Justice Phillip McMurdo found against us! Looking back now Lyons must have coached McMurdo as an independent study of the law proves we were always protected retrospectively by the Integrated Planning Act of 1997 under section - The outcome was rigged!
See William Purcell’s Independent property report below: -
4.72 When Chapter 6 of the IntegratedPlanningAct 1997 (Qld) (IPA) commenced on 30 March 1998, Section 6.1.24 (1) would have operated, I would think, so as to attach the conditions of the development approval to the 11 lots and common property created by GTP 1836 and so as to bind the successors in title to those lots. That provision is contained in Chapter 6 Division 6. Those provisions are not all that easy to construe. But, on my analysis,the development approval was a “continuing approval” for the purposes of Section 6.1.24 (1).
4.73 By virtue of Section 6.1.23 (2) of IPA, a continuing approval and any conditions attaching to it took effect as if they were a “development approval” in the form of a “preliminary approval” or a “development permit” for the purposes of IPA.
4.74 The relevance of that to a body corporate and lot owners, who were bound by a continuing approval under IPA, was the development offence provision in Section 4.3.3 (1). It stated that a person must not contravene a development approval, including any condition of the approval. The maximum penalty for an offence under that Section was 1,665 points – a large penalty.
4.75 For that reason, it was incumbent upon the committee members of bodies corporate and professional body corporate managers to manage the risk of such contravention. That requires, amongst other things, identifying the conditions of the development approval which applies to the
4.76 Consequently, one would have to expect a body corporate committee which comprised lawyers, accountants, and the like (as was the case with Goldieslie Park), to have become so informed.
4.77 If those observations are valid or if the body corporate did become so informed, the records kept by the body corporate (or at least those relating to Lot 1’s access over Lot 2, including the Berndt letter) should have contained that information and those records should have been disclosed by the body corporate in the litigation between the body corporate and Mrs Wirkus.
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 lawyers Kathleen 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 who employed 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.
Please understand that Justice Peter Lyons as a Queens Counsel specialising in Planning and Property law managed both sets of proceedings behind the scenes which means he must have communicated with Justice Phillip McMurdo.
(1) Wirkus -V- Wilson Lawyers.
(2) Wirkus -v- The Body Corporate for Goldieslie Park Community Titles Scheme No 20924 (Supreme Court Proceedings 7976108)
Justice Peter Lyons QC obviously had an acute understanding of property law as the City of Brisbane Town Plan remained consistent with minor amendments from 1964 through to 13 June 1986. The document consisted of approximately 140 pages over 22 years, In 1978 the Minister for everything in Queensland ‘The Honourable Russell Hinze MP’ Included the iconic principle of 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 Peter Lyons QC had communications with John Gallagher QC and his Junior Mark Johnston, all property experts immediately prior to penning the misleading $30,000 ‘Opinion’ in 2009 on ‘indefeasible title’ and must have had a relationship with Justice McMurdo who found in Lexon Insurance and James Noble’s 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.
I did my best work under pressure during my deepestsleeps, my sub conscience worked tirelessly. I remember waking at 4 am one morning perhaps in 2013. I didn’t want to wake my wife. I then quietly slipped away to study my files. Bingo! Eureka! I could not believe my eyes, it was amazing. I looked through the Noble file and discovered the refund cheque $17.45! Who photocopies a refund cheque! It was a refund cheque from Lexon Insurance! The penny dropped! James Noble the lawyer had filed a claim against his professional Indemnity Insurance policy from 1988 – twenty-three years later! It was truly mind blowing! What insurance anywhere on planet earth would honour a professional Insurance claim against a negligent lawyer acting as a Director of his own Development Company Ibenbah Pty Ltd who neglected to register an Easement, a condition imposed by the Brisbane City Council unless they already knew the outcome! Any other conclusion does not make sense! All three law firms in those proceedings had relationship with Lexon. Two were financed by Lexon. My own Barrister was no fool, he must have known! We didn’t stand a chance! It was rigged.
At the time I didn’t understand the significance of my discovery as I assumed I wasn’t protected by IPA 1997 against ‘Indefeasible Title’. The other convenient escape clause the Judiciary have in this circumstance is how does one prove intent! How does one prove these crimes were not simply an accident, and who would listen!