The following topics are dealt with in detail on respective web pages.
- New documents: In spite of having told Pagone J that it was normal to have an amended defence in relation to changes to a statement of claim, Southall fought to not allow my request to file and serve such an amended defence at the very beginning of the trial. However, because he had not pleaded anything about my apology, he sought after his case was closed, to amend his clients’ last statement of claim so as to incorporate a pleading in relation to my apology.
- Hearsay: Southall used hearsay prolifically during the trial and appeals yet did not allow me to answer his question which was not hearsay anyway.
- Background: Southall repeatedly brought in background information in spite of his Honour forbidding him to do so, yet complained when, in answer to one of his questions, I gave the background.
- Defamation: Southall took me on for defamation of his clients when he knew that what I said was true, yet he publicly and repeatedly defamed me repeatedly without qualm.
- Intimidation: Southall falsely accused me of trying to intimidate his clients by trying to make them by our property (when we were simply offering it in accordance with one of his clients’ offer to buy), yet he tried repeatedly to intimidate me.
- Apologies: Southall belaboured and switched tactics about my apology, yet is not willing to apologise to either me or the court for his conduct.
These are just some of the “do as I say and not as I do” syndrome exhibited by Southall, and the totally unbalanced set of scales he uses – you will see many more instances as you read the web pages.