A Federal Court judge expressed frustration over the way those behind controversial firm Erudite Legal conducted themselves during bankruptcy proceedings, including shouting, aggressive body language, late appearances, and “bizarre submissions”.
In a decision handed down late last month, Justice Kylie Downes ordered the estates of Shivesh Kuksal, Lulu Xu, and solicitor Peter Ansell to be sequestered under the Bankruptcy Act and allowed for creditors and reserved costs to be taxed and paid from them.
The bankruptcy matter stemmed from applications brought for and against the Victorian Legal Services Board over the alleged conduct of Kuksal, Xu, and Ansell with respect to the law firm, Erudite Legal.
In making the orders, Justice Downes dismissed their grounds of opposition, which included claims that there was no debt owed because it was obtained by fraud, one of the parties was not personally served with the notice, and the costs orders were “unenforceable”.
The judgment noted the unusual conduct of the four-day hearing, including the “pugnacious” behaviour from Kuksal, whose body language was found to be “aggressive and confrontational”.
“Kuksal interrupted and talked over me or counsel for the applicants, raised his voice (and even shouted on occasion), made loud interjections while seated at the bar table, and refused to sit down when requested to do so,” Justice Downes said.
“Court personnel and legal representatives for parties should not be subjected to this type of unacceptable conduct, the impact of which is not reflected in the transcript in an adequate way.”
Kuksal was removed from the court on two occasions for his constant disruption of the proceedings. On the first, he was sent a link to observe the hearing, and on the second, he was removed for 15 minutes.
Twice, Kuksal and Xu appeared late for the commencement of the hearing days, and also arrived late after the lunch adjournment, despite Kuksal’s own lengthy submission about them supposedly being “deprived of sufficient time in the proceedings”.
Justice Downes said the “lack of respect and courtesy” shown to the court mirrored their behaviour in proceedings before Justice Peter Gorton of the Victorian Supreme Court, who struck out the majority of an originating application and summons for a separate matter.
In the months since the hearing date was listed, Kuksal, Xu, and Ansell filed seemingly endless recusal applications and advanced outstanding legal issues before another Federal Court judge.
“All of this leads me to observe that the respondents could have, but chose not to, devote their time, energy and resources to addressing the real issues in dispute in this case,” Justice Downes said.
“Regrettably, had the respondents spent their time preparing cogent affidavit material and submissions which were relevant to the grounds, then the outcome of the petition might have been different.”
Justice Downes said that given Ansell was legally qualified, it was something they were “more than capable of doing”.
“That they chose not to is their own fault entirely,” she added.
At the end of her judgment, Justice Downes addressed the repeated applications to have her recused, which she declined each time.
Some of the submissions advanced by Kuksal, Xu, and Ansell contained “bizarre submissions” about Justice Downes’ psychological and strategic motivations, which had “no proper basis”.
A “peculiar section” containing submissions about Justice Downes’ psychological profile was deemed “so ridiculous that it does not deserve a substantive response” in the written reasons.
One complaint related to a notification from YouTube that a video posted by Kuksal that referenced Justice Downes had been taken down. It was unclear what that had to do with the recusal application, particularly as it was taken down at the request of the government.
Much like their behaviour during the proceedings, Justice Downes said she formed the view that the repeated applications for recusal “were for the purpose of delaying or impeding the progress of the hearing”.
“To that end, I considered that the applications were not genuine and that the respondents were failing to comply with … the Federal Court Act, and that it would be unfair and prejudicial to the applicants, and prejudicial to the administration of justice, if I continued to permit such applications to interrupt the progress of the hearing,” Justice Downes said.
The case: Victorian Legal Services Board v Kuksal (Sequestration Order) [2025] FCA 999.
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
