Anthony Southall

Any reference to CASACIR or its directors, shareholders, owners or operators relates to pre-14 February 2024 when the company was sold. In no way can anything said relate to the company or its new owners, operators, directors, and shareholders after that sale.

I contend that Anthony Southall (“Southall”) QC grossly breached the ethics and the law guiding a barrister and legal practitioner’s conduct. While some of the matters appear small, each nonetheless contributes evidence to a pattern of behaviour which, when taken as a whole, reveals that honesty and duty to the court appears to be an arbitrary matter to Southall – which leaves one with the impression that his word can’t necessarily be trusted, and must, therefore, be absolutely tested. Every person to whom I have shown the transcripts is truly horrified by Southall’s conduct and shocked by what they have said is his dishonesty. Some of this conduct is revealed in this website – it is all my opinion, but my opinion is based on evidence.

By active participation, collaboration, collusion, and conspiracy, Southall supported and aided his clients, including CASACIR Pty Ltd (“CASACIR”), and the other members of his clients’ team. He did this without any valid cause or reason in making grossly erroneous misrepresentations, claims and denials which assisted in his clients being granted many hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages, interest and costs.

Southall personally ignored the fact that he is an officer of the court and that his primary duty is and was to the court and to be both honest and highly ethical.

Steve Mark, the then NSW Legal Services Commissioner stated in his presentation to the Australian Young Lawyers Stream on 18 September 2009 (Ethic in Litigation and Court Proceedings) that:

Practitioners should remember that at the basis of the ethical duty not to mislead the Court, lies the simple notion of honesty. Honesty is critical to an ethical legal practice. As the Deputy President of one Disciplinary Tribunal recently stated:

Honesty in a practitioner’s dealing with the Court is a fundamental pillar of the administration of justice in this State. It is a primary duty of a legal practitioner. Without that linchpin of honesty, the administration of justice and public confidence in it would falter. The duty is critical to the lawyer’s role. The Court and the public not only expect it, but rely on it, and assume it in their dealings with legal practitioners.[1]

Southall’s conduct against me commenced in August 2011 and continued through to at least 2019.

An overview of Southall’s conduct

In great disregard for truth, and revealing gross disrespect to the court, Southall was fully and deeply involved in, and indeed, instigated and gave advice on, the grossly erroneous conduct of the proceedings. Southall was fundamental to the court proceedings, and in particular to each of the steps of the following very incomplete list:

  • he colluded, collaborated and conspired with each of his clients and the other team members in misleading and deceiving the court and denigrating me;
  • his actions assisted in perverting the course of justice;
  • he reviewed the website contents and advised the timing of commencing action, particularly advising in, or at least agreeing to, the delay of taking action;
  • he reviewed the website contents and advised the timing of commencing action, particularly advising in, or at least agreeing to, the deliberate delay in particularisation;
  • he advised the inclusion of each of the plaintiffs as well as the grossly erroneous claims for defamation, injurious falsehood and misleading and deceptive conduct for his clients;
  • he advised as to which entities could or should be parties and to which claims;
  • he settled the originating writ and summons, including the claims for injunctions which he later admitted that he knew they could not obtain;
  • he settled each of the 7 iterations of the statement of claim, including with all their grossly erroneous claims and denials;
  • he settled answers to requests for further and better particulars, including with all its grossly erroneous claims and denials, knowing that CASACIR and the injurious falsehood and misleading and deceptive conduct causes of action of each of his clients would all be overtly withdrawn at a far later date, but which would all be covertly retained;
  • he vetted my defence and gave the other team members advice on it;
  • he settled his clients’ affidavit of documents, thereby knowing that certain documents were included that destroyed his clients’ case for aggravated damages:
    • yet retained the grossly erroneous claims regardless (and carried them through the trial), and
    • falsely denied any knowledge of those documents in spite of having recently read and studied a number of them;
  • he advised the belated removal of one of the parties he had specifically advised be a participant;
  • he advised the removal of the major part of the claims, namely the injurious falsehood and misleading and deceptive conduct claims of his clients after having specifically advised they be included, and had deliberately tried to use those grossly erroneous claims to intimidate me into removing the entire previous website;
  • he settled his clients’ affidavit of discovered documents and selectively did not put some documents into the notice to admit, knowing that there were documents within the affidavit of documents discovered that proved that he had settled grossly erroneous claims for aggravated damages;
  • he gave counsel on my notice to admit and affidavit of documents;
  • he gave advice on my notice under r.4010 of the Rules;
  • he approved and settled correspondence;
  • he settled and presented submissions and addresses as absolute unassailable fact regardless of knowing he was making significantly grossly erroneous claims before their Honours;
  • he gave advice on, and settled, refusals to accept offers of compromise, including by telling their Honours that costs were not included in my offer when they were and thus having his clients refuse my offer – thereby gaining himself hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional fees by the continuation of the case;
  • he supported falsely sworn testimony, including lying under oath by referring to some sworn testimony as “throw-away lines”, and he referred to repeated grossly erroneous conduct (including his clients’ falsely sworn testimony and his own grossly erroneous misrepresentations in submissions and addresses) as “little matters” and “trifling matters” that the court should not worry itself over[2];
  • he presented and ran his clients’ cases in mediations and in court;
  • he entirely ran the proceedings within the confines of court;
  • he tried to destroy my reputation by repeated, unwarranted, unsubstantiated, defamatory, nasty,, small-minded, and false, verbal assaults on me;
  • he tried to intimidate me many times, and virtually admitted some of the intimidation;
  • he caused significant surprise by introducing a number of matters that had not been pleaded and made them mainstays of his clients’ cases;
  • he want well beyond his pleadings and tried after his case was closed, to have some of them retrospectively added to his pleadings;
  • he used his clients’ own actions against me;
  • he used his and his junior’s decisions and actions against me;
  • he instructed and settled documents and attended directions hearing in relation to his clients’ response to my application under s29 of the CPA;
  • he continued to grossly erroneous reiterate as fact matters that had been proved to be false and misleading;
  • he grossly erroneous, and in a totally unwarranted manner, implied that I had been dishonest, and that I had been guilty of gross misconduct including threatening behaviour and of lying on my previous website, but refused to try and substantiate those grossly erroneous aspersions about me; and
  • he grossly erroneous, and in a totally unwarranted manner, repeatedly attempted to discredit me before the court and their Honours.

Such conduct was defamatory, fraudulent, and, inter alia, broke the law.

Along with his other deplorable conduct evidenced, Southall seems to have trouble taking responsibility for his own actions and decisions, blaming others for his mistakes – I wouldn’t class that as a particularly mature response, would you? For example:

  1. Southall made the following misrepresentations before Beach J on 23 November 2012 regarding the mistakes his Honour had pointed out in the fourth iteration of their statement of claim:

I will upgrade my junior accordingly, Your Honour,

Yet the bill of costs served on me on 8 March 2017 revealed that it was Southall who claimed he had, and was paid for having:

Settle[d] amended pleadings drawn by junior counsel[3]

So, not only was his accusation before Beach J bullying and belittling of Kaye, it was blaming her for his own shoddy work.

    1. On 20 June 2017, Southall had repeatedly tried to excuse his being un-robed to the court of appeal officers as being his junior’s fault[4]. Not happy with that, he then went on to continue his rant haranguing her in front of their Honours, Whelan and Beach JJA:

Mr Southall: Your Honours, I appear, unrobed, with my junior, and I am reluctant to announce her appearance because she has thrown me under a bus in the context of robing – – -


Whelan JA: Don’t worry about it. I think we robe for everything in the Court of Appeal – – –

Mr Southall: Yes.

Whelan JA: Except of Directions hearings. 


Mr Southall: Yes. The rules have changed a little, and I did telephone her at 8:45 – – – 


Whelan JA: Don’t worry about it.

Mr Southall: But she is robed because she is appearing elsewhere at 10:30.

Whelan JA: Okay.

Mr Southall: So that explains it – she did a quick change so – – – 


Whelan JA: All right. 


Mr Southall: Anyway, that is my position. Thank you very much.

This conduct is clearly bullying and belittling and seems to be an on-going and appalling pattern of behaviour. Aside from that, even I, an untrained self-represented litigant knew that generally barristers had to be robed before the Court of Appeal.

The grossly erroneous claims advised upon, checked and settled by Southall, and contained within the statement of claim dated 2 April 2013 were pleaded and ventilated before Pagone J, and Pagone J believed them and specifically referred to some of them in their Reasons at [5]-[11]

The grossly erroneous claims advised upon, checked and settled by Southall, and contained within the statement of claim dated 2 April 2013 were pleaded and ventilated before Warren CJ, Tate JA and Ginnane AJA, and they believed them and referred to some of them in their Reasons at [5]

Southall was a crucial part of the entire process and not only assisted in, and presented as absolute and unequivocal fact, grossly erroneous material and information, but was proactive in support of lying under oath. He also personally made grossly erroneous claims, denials, addresses, submissions and twisted facts to make them appear to be factual when they were actually and knowingly false. Those claims were just part of the grossly erroneous evidence, submissions, addresses and information that contributed to Southall winning his clients damages, interest and costs (including on an indemnity basis), totalling hundreds of thousands of dollars. Further, by such appalling conduct, Southall was thereby grandly rewarded by being paid many hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees.

Total lack of remorse, or apology

Southall made a large issue of the fact that I had not apologised at an early stage with regard to what I wrote in my previous website, and that I had continued to assert the truthfulness of what I had written [because it was true].

Southall was aware of some of the issues I had with his conduct so, prior to me taking this action in relation to, inter alia, his dishonest and misleading conduct, I offered to sit down with him and discuss the issues, either directly or before a mediator, but (through a solicitor) Southall refused my offer of a meeting, or a session before a mediator.

I had said a number of times that Southall had made no admissions (and had in fact denied what he has done), and he certainly has not shown any regret or remorse, or in any way changed his conduct. Further, he has given absolutely no apology at all.

Southall has significantly breached many of the Vic Bar Rules, the ASC Rules, the LPUC Rules, by his above conduct, and he has colluded with others to mislead and deceive the court, and collaboratively, deliberately, grossly erroneously, repeatedly, and personally broken the law that is supposed to guide his cpnduct. He has actively assisted his clients to be grossly and repeatedly dishonest; he has behaved in a manner that was prejudicial to justice and has thereby diminished public confidence in the legal profession and its perception of the administration of justice. Further, he has, by his own actions, personally brought the legal profession further into disrepute and prejudiced my case greatly by his production of grossly erroneous claims, denials, accusations, submissions and addresses.

For his appalling conduct, Southall has been admitted to have been paid at least:

  1. $40,875.00 for his work before Emerton J (the appeal of the VCAT costs[5]);
  2. $158,550.00 for his work for the case before Pagone J;
  3. $97,742.50 for his work in the 2014 appeals before Warren CJ, Tate JA and Ginnane AJA; and
  4. $63,285.00 for the s29 application before McDonald J.

That is a known total of $360,452.50 so far, and that is without his fees for the 2016 appeal before Santamaria, Kyrou and Elliot JJA, and for my stay application before Whelan and Beach JJA in June 2017, for which I will be billed unless stopped (not only is it not yet billed, but it is not billed in spite of my having given notice in April 2017 for them to serve me with the bill):

Southall cannot be said to have been acting in good faith when he knew the truth and facts and made submissions and addresses, and supported testimony that was contrary to what he knew to be true. Having conducted himself in the manner he has, it is questionable if he should retain his role as a barrister at all, and it is extremely questionable if he deserves to retain his elevated standing as a Queens Counsel. that is my opinion, but you decide what he deserves because the decision makers will not.

[1]    Quoting the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee and Vogt [2009] WASAT 125 per Eckert J at [65]. See also Council of the Queensland Law Society Inc v Wright [2001] QCA 58 at [67], where the McMurdo P stated:

“The effective administration of the justice system and public confidence in it substantially depends on the honesty and reliability of practitioners’ submissions to the court. This duty of candour and fairness is quintessential to the lawyer’s role as officer of the court; the court and the public expect and rely upon it, no matter how new or inexperienced the practitioner. Breaches such as this are hard to detect and once established to the requisite standard are deserving of condign punishment, not only as a deterrent but also to reassure the public that such conduct on the part of lawyers will not be tolerated.”

[2]    Before their Honours of the 2016 Court of Appeal when trying to obfuscate and belittle the allegations. It must be noted that Southall used three examples of “small” or “trifling” matters: (1) that the plaintiffs (grossly erroneously) in a collaborated and pre-planned manner swore to me having forced them into 40 days in VCAT when (a) there were only 23 days in total, (b) I was only one of 28 people in 12 of those days, (c) that a number of those remaining days were instigated by the plaintiffs themselves; (2) that the first plaintiff knew the details of conversations held in closed mediation sessions to which he (either personally or by representations) had no access – and his “information” was false, so his testimony was fraudulent on two counts; and (3) the mention about dust referred back to the VCAT hearings in which CASACIR lied under oath verbally and in affidavits, and which grossly erroneous misrepresentations the other plaintiffs approved. Mr Southall has proved that he believes that it is totally unimportant that his clients knowingly and repeatedly lied under oath and the he, himself, not only knew it but added to it by his own profound and continued grossly erroneous misrepresentations.

See the other pages for details on topics, but my comments must be read and taken in concert in order to gain a fuller perspective as to why it is my opinion that Southall has, inter alia, breached legislation and ignored ethics and his obligation to honesty.

[3]    Item 300.

[4]    These rantings are not in the transcript being as it was prior to the hearing

[5]    For one and a half days in court.