In the six years since the proceedings were commenced, Justice Fagan said the court has made “countless allowances” to Kearney but his ultimate desire was to avoid making it to a final hearing so he could instead “instigate conflict between himself and judicial officers”.

“He has thereby sought to generate events around which he can formulate complaints in furtherance of his obsessive hostility.

“This modus operandi can be seen in the plaintiff’s incessant protests about the court’s conduct of interlocutory procedures. In the course of each hearing he has issued a stream of complaints, followed up after the hearings in emails addressed to associates and registrars,” he said.

While the proceedings commenced through interlocutory stages, Kearney maintained a YouTube channel and website where he uploaded videos of himself in a news presenter role to make “generalised allegations of corruption” concerning the NSW Supreme Court.

“During my management of the proceedings, the plaintiff has updated the YouTube channel with video recordings containing allegations against myself,” Justice Fagan disclosed in his written reasons.

VIEW ALL

Back in February, orders were made for the proceedings to be set down for a final hearing on 28 April. If Kearney did not attend, Justice Fagan ordered Yates Beaggi Lawyers to be permitted to be heard on a notice of motion for the permanent stay of the proceedings.

In a letter emailed to Justice Fagan’s associate on 26 April, a Saturday, a doctor informed the court that Kearney was “triggered” by the February order and would be transferred to a private psychiatric hospital.

Taking this as an application to vacate the hearing, Justice Fagan instead dismissed Kearney’s claim for relief filed under his further amended statement of claim and entered judgment for the firm.

While Justice Fagan accepted that the doctor honestly formed his opinion, he said the doctor did not have the “documented history of the plaintiff’s energetic prosecution” of his various applications.

In contrast, Justice Fagan said he has observed Kearney across a number of hours on different dates and has reviewed email correspondence sent by Kearney to his associate, long written submissions, transcripts of his appearance in the Court of Appeal, and a number of other applications and appeal submissions.

“This longitudinal exposure to the plaintiff’s conduct and state of mind has given the court a significant advantage over [the doctor] in assessing whether claimed pathological panic … is genuine,” he said.

Looking back at the history of the matter, Justice Fagan said Kearney has revealed a “determined opposition” to bringing the case to a final hearing, which would explain why he took the “extraordinary step of feigning psychiatric illness” in order to sabotage the April date.

In March, Kearney’s last appearance before Justice Fagan, he prepared a very detailed and lengthy brief addressed to his psychologist, which sought to elicit support for the proposition that Justice Fagan’s conduct of the interlocutory applications was “detrimental” to him.

“The plaintiff’s process of briefing [the psychologist] was manipulative, the questions asked of him being heavily loaded, but the exercise was consistent with the plaintiff’s capability in the litigation, as demonstrated in all aspects,” Justice Fagan said.

In the last six years, but particularly the four weeks between the February orders and the last appearance in March, Kearney showed himself well able to participate in the preparation of documents and in his oral presentations, Justice Fagan found.

“The plaintiff has behaved in an extremely difficult and abrasive manner at all times, and he may well suffer from major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder and complex post-traumatic stress disorder, as [the doctor] has diagnosed,” Justice Fagan said.

“However, in the conduct of interlocutory proceedings, he has exhibited no impediment from mental disorders.”

The case: Kearney v Amirbeaggi [2025] NSWSC 455 (14 May 2025)