More recusals plague Federal Court action against Erudite Legal

Justice Bennett agreed to the recusal application but said it was only because Kuksal had flagged a disciplined lawyer – a man she represented in the past – might provide evidence about the board.

The matter was allocated to another judge, who also recused himself after he was told about a conflict with another matter.

Last week, the matter was reallocated to Justice Kylie Downes, but a judgment handed down on Tuesday, 18 June, indicated Kuksal, Xu, and Ansell were considering filing yet another recusal application.

The application was flagged in an email sent to Justice Downes shortly after the first case management hearing. In it, the respondents sought directions about filing the application.

“If the respondents wish to make that application, then they can file and serve it without a direction from me,” Justice Downes said.

VIEW ALL

The case management hearing experienced several other headaches, including a number of emails sent to Justice Downes’ chambers that included “various attachments and embedded links”.

“As is my usual practice, I did not have regard to those ex parte communications. I also directed my chambers staff not to open the embedded links in those emails or print out any of the attachments which came with those emails,” Justice Downes said.

Twenty minutes before the hearing, the respondents also sent an interlocutory application, and later an amended version. Justice Downes said the court would not deal with it on the day.

While some submissions were made, it was apparent the board would need more time to address the matters, and Justice Downes said she wished to hear from both parties as to why it would be necessary to hear the application prior to the creditors’ petition.

The creditors’ petition was set down for late July, with a direction that it be heard “as expeditiously as possible”.

Justice Downes said it could have been brought on earlier, but the dates were chosen to “allow the issue of whether the interlocutory application should be heard and determined prior”.

Last June, the board sought an order restraining Ansell from engaging in legal practice and a permanent injunction against Kuksal. Both he and Xu were directors of Erudite Legal.

In a decision handed down in September 2024, Kuksal was said to have used his furniture company, Apex Logistics Solutions, to hold customers’ furniture for ransom. He allegedly then sent threatening letters to them from Erudite Legal.

Ansell had been the principal solicitor, but his practising certificate was not renewed for the 2022–23 year after the board determined he was “not a person of good fame and character”.

The case: Victorian Legal Services Board v Kuksal (No 2) [2025] FCA 646