Defrocked solicitor struggles to get back on the jam roll … Unimpressive evidence … Court unmoved by reference from silk … Ecclesiastical law evoked in thwarted action against the Queen … Hodgepodge of confusion … Court vexed … Anna Kretowicz reports
In Bax v Legal Practitioners Admissions Board, the QCA gave Craig Bax a good paddling in his application for re-admission as a solicitor, where the answer was a resounding “no”.
Eighteen years ago, a 27-year old Bax was struck off the jam roll for shonky insolvency work at “Get With the Heavyweights” law shop, Baker Johnson.
Law’n’order must run in the family, as his brother, Dean Bax, was also ordered to take a 12-month holiday for playing dress-up as a solicitor and charging $308 per hour for it.
Legally barred, (Craig) Bax busied himself with other pursuits, primarily as a licensed debt collector, tax agent and real estate agent for a group of companies called the Options Group.
In an uncanny resemblance to his Baker Johnson days, during which the law shop was infamous for voraciously pursuing clients for fees, Bax pursued debt-related litigation in his (apparent) capacity as a company director.
The Bureau de Spank sniffed around after some complaints were made and found “unlawful operation as a practitioner”, but took no further action.
There must be something about Craig, because the Tax Practitioners Board also caught a whiff and found he had failed to comply with a number of tax laws.
Spurred on by this glittering CV, he sought re-admission to the profession in 2020, but it went off to the QCA when the LPAB opposed his entry through the pearly gates.
CJ Catherine Holmes was unimpressed by the evidence, including a reference from a QC who “had very little contact with [Bax] since 1998” and cut-and-pasted affidavits.
It was also apparently the fault of the Chinese immigrants employed by the companies that Bax wasn’t a registered director when he was running the litigation, because they didn’t fill out the forms properly.
Bax was promptly turned away, with his continuing “cavalier” and “unforthcoming” behaviour and not measuring up to the minimum height of admission for the Legal Profession-coaster.
Someone must be feeling the growing pains.
Bax v Legal Practitioners Admissions Board
It is believed that irrationality is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result – and so we find back for another bite at the cherry Ross James Bradley, who did get a different result this time.
Bradley’s latest application was his sixth rodeo, so he’s a veritable Queensland cowboy by this point.
For readers unfamiliar with the serial litigator, he could be described as a bit of a royals fanatic. Not because of his extensive collection of China plates adorned with Kate and Wills’ faces, but because of his persistent desire to sue the HM The Queen.
Presenting what CA Prez Walter Sofronoff described as yet another “hodgepodge of confusion”, Bradley sought once again to invoke “the supreme Ecclesiastical Law” to his desired end.
Drawing from dwindling reserves of patience, the Prez invited Bradley to make submissions as to why his proceeding should not be struck out, and why he should not be declared a vexatious litigant.
The response was apparently disordered and incomprehensible, a step up (or down?) from some of his of previous “incoherent and incompetent” applications.
It’s a group more exclusive than the Tattersall’s Club, with Bradley being just its 27th member since 1983. Some of his clubmates include Richard Gunter, who shares his preoccupation with the Magna Carta; and Peter Markan, who sought damages of $10 million and 13 cents from the QPS for failing to investigate the competency of three Court of Appeal judges.
It looks like Bradley will have to find another hobby, now being banned from instituting proceedings in Queensland.
Just like The Big Pineapple and Beef Week, Bradley and Bax make for some of Queensland’s finest spectacles.