Erudite Legal highlights difficulty in dealing with self-represented litigants, judge says

“The current controversy … is a paradigm example of the difficulties currently bedevilling this and other courts in dealing with self-represented litigants and opposing parties who often overcomplicate their response to querulous opponents,” Justice Lee said.

The Federal Court proceedings concern a bankruptcy notice for the unpaid costs orders made against Kuksal, Xu, and Ansell in various Supreme Court of Victoria proceedings. In one, they were restrained from claiming they were entitled to engage in legal practice.

The final hearing will also deal with objections to sequestration orders on the basis that the judgment debts were allegedly “procured by fraud”, and a claim that the bankruptcy proceedings were commenced as a way to deter Kuksal, Xu, and Ansell from pursuing complaints of misconduct against the Victorian Legal Services Board.

Although the sequestration matter has a listing date for later this month, the Federal Court proceedings have had their fair share of obstacles, including numerous recusal applications. Justice Lee said it was “further reason” for expeditious resolution.

“The amount of judicial time which has been involved in attempting to deal with this matter can only be the subject of speculation.

“On any view, it has involved various judges hearing argument in interlocutory matters, reserving their decisions, and then writing judgments, including lengthy judgments, which then become the subject of further and repeated disputation,” Justice Lee said.

VIEW ALL

While all are entitled to their day in court, Justice Lee said that did not mean they were entitled to “another person’s day in court”. Every hour spent on this matter is another day justice is denied for another.

To minimise any further delay, Justice Lee said the best way to deal with the current matter is to quickly push it into a final hearing.

“A focus on an early final hearing will identify whether there is a real issue or issues to be determined – something which is often obscured by the brume of endless interlocutory applications and collateral disputation,” Justice Lee said in his written reasons.

“Often the amount of time spent on interlocutory disputation with subsequent applications for leave to appeal or for the setting aside of orders can be minimised if the court grasps the nettle of listing the matter for early final hearing.”

There were six outstanding issues before Justice Lee, including an application by the board to restrain Kuksal, Xu, and Ansell from disclosing certain scandalous allegations, and an order for the broad suppression or non-disclosure of this same information.

Justice Lee said both aspects of relief were “misconceived” because there was no basis to do so outside of the bankruptcy proceedings. If published elsewhere, Justice Lee said the law of defamation would be an appropriate remedy “for any actionable damage occasioned”.

Focusing on the bankruptcy proceedings only, Justice Lee said it was inconceivable how the allegations could be used to support a rational argument, and he made an order that they not be repeated in these proceedings. An affidavit about the allegations was also removed.

Justice Lee also dealt with a judicial review application concerning a registrar’s rejection of two affidavits and a notice.

An affidavit prepared by Kuksal included a number of allegations against judges and was rejected for being “clearly vexatious and an abuse of process”. Justice Lee said it was plainly open for the judicial registrar to have come to this conclusion.

The notice was described as “constitutional gobbledygook” and made a series of contentions as to whether the powers of the court allowed it to act in an allegedly “illegal or improper” way.

“In essence, it is a backdoor way of making various complaints about the way in which the proceeding has been conducted. On any view, it was open for the registrar to conclude that the rejected [notice] was vexatious and an abuse of process,” Justice Lee said.

The case: Victorian Legal Services Board v Kuksal (Interlocutory Matters) [2025] FCA 801