Prominent silk’s upward pressure on unfair dismissal costs for clients … Repeat offender reenters Queensland potty-mouth lawyer stakes … Human rights, invasion of privacy, hygiene and the technicolour yawn … Janek Drevikovsky reports
The case, tried in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, ended with a costs bill for the unsuccessful clients – which, because of his Lordship’s involvement, was higher than it would otherwise have been.
The losing parties were seven former Ipswich City councillors, who were put out of work when the council was dissolved by the Queensland government.
Suing the vestigial council, the councillors argued they were “employees” and deserved a payout.
Commissioner Minna Knight dismissed the claim, finding that as elected officials councillors could not be described as employees.
The commission normally does not award costs – but in this case, the council argued the losers should have to cover at least some of its more than $62,000 in legal bills.
In reply, the unhappy councillors told Commissioner Knight that, according to Lord Eldon, they had a strong claim – advice they apparently relied on in bringing the case.
To support this argument, the councillors tendered news articles reporting Eldon’s submissions during the initial hearing.
One article, from the Brisbane Times, read:
“Tony Morris QC, representing former councillors … told the QIRC that even members of parliament should be considered ’employees of the parliament’ under common law and councillors had the same rights.”
Also reported was this curious exchange:
“There was a brief interruption to proceedings when Commissioner Knight told Mr Morris her version of the councillors’ submissions appeared to differ from his.
The commission therefore took the unusual step of ordering costs. The only remaining question was how much.
Because the councillors retained a silk of Lord Eldon’s stature, the council said it was required to go to the trouble of hiring its own barristers.
Commissioner Knight agreed that this had increased the council’s fees, so she ordered that costs be assessed using the Supreme Court scale, rather than the Magistrate’s Court scale normally relied on by the commission.
Ouch.
Ipswich City Council v Wendt & Ors
Mr Winning, principal at Rockhampton criminal law shop Winning Lawyers, was given a dressing down before the bench, after a profanity-laden email meant for a prosecutor ended up in the court’s inbox.
Rockhampton Supreme Court judge Graeme Crow said the email was a clear breach of the conduct rules, though he refused to disclose its contents in open court.
“This is not courteous,” he said. “I cannot turn a blind eye to this.”
His Honour reminded Mr Winning that the rules required him to be polite – a requirement which, as a solicitor of 34 years’ standing, he should have been well aware.
While he was “disappointed” with the email, Justice Crow said he didn’t intend to “do anything about it”, but wanted it placed on the public record.
This isn’t Mr Winning’s first time at the obscenity-rodeo. In 2015, the Bureau de Spank gave him a lettucing for whispering “fucking idiot” while a jury was present and calling prosecutor Danny Boyle a “cunt”.
For those indiscretions, Winning was convicted of professional misconduct and forced to pay the Law Society’s costs, totalling $71,000. He was not, however, struck from the jam roll.
In 2018, Mr Winning was declared bankrupt over a tax debt of $186,000.
And last year, he blew a blood alcohol reading of .146 – after crashing his car into a Rockhampton roadworks sign.
Winning confessed to downing two bottles of Bundaberg Rum before his fender bender, which he put down to an alcoholic relapse.
Representing himself, Winning convinced the traffic court his punishment should be an $800 fine and an eight-month disqualification.
Perhaps his most ill-fated excursion was his electoral dalliance with the Palmer United Party in the lead up to the 2015 Queensland election.
Speaking to News Corp, Mr Winning said the PUP was “close to his political ideologies” and that, if elected, he aspired to become Queensland’s attorney general.
But all seems to have been for nought as it doesn’t seem that Winning ever made it onto a ballot.
What is it about Banana Benders that produces such salty language? Who can forget Rhino Baker’s sprays of invective and abuse? And, of course, there was the famous, “Get me a fuckin’ pizza” courtroom drama, handled with such aplomb by the Daubster.
Cheryl Pile brought her action last year in the Chester Crown Court, claiming that by removing her soiled garments police violated her privacy, assaulted her and trespassed on her person.
Knocked back by the Recorder, Ms Pile tried her luck in the High Court, where Mr Justice Mark Turner heard the appeal and evidently enjoyed writing the judgment, which is being celebrated by the prominent British red-tops
The case, Sir Mark said, concerned “the liberty of inebriated English subjects to be allowed to lie undisturbed overnight in their own vomit soaked clothing”.
“Of course, such a right, although perhaps of dubious practical utility, will generally extend to all adults of sound mind who are intoxicated at home.
Ms Pile, however, was not at home. She was at a police station in Liverpool having been arrested for the offence of being drunk and disorderly.
She had emptied the contents of her stomach all over herself and was too insensible with drink to have much idea of either where she was or what she was doing there.
Rather than leave the vulnerable claimant to marinade overnight in her own bodily fluids, four female police officers removed her outer clothing and provided her with a clean dry outfit to wear.”
After Ms Pile’s assisted outfit change, she was left in a cell and periodically observed through a hatch by a male inspector.
“His intention was to ensure her continued safety,” the judge said.
“Inspector Fairhurst had no darker voyeuristic purpose when he was checking up on her.”
Discharged the next morning, police fined her £60 for being drunk and disorderly.
“It is against this colourful background that she brought a claim against the police … alleging that they should have left her squalidly and unhygienically soaking in vomit.”
Mr Justice Turner was unimpressed with the grounds of appeal. He found the police had not breached their powers and that Ms Pile had impliedly consented to a change of clothes.
Arguments about the European Convention on Human Rights also failed, with HH concluding the “invasion” of Ms Pile’s privacy was necessary to protect “health and morals”.
Finally, he considered the likely public attitude to a case like this, though this factor formed “no part of [his] reasoning”: