Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
Two directors and an ousted lawyer behind the controversial firm Erudite Legal made one last attempt to put off a final hearing into bankruptcy proceedings brought by the Victorian Legal Services Board.
Shivesh Kuksal, Lulu Xu, and Peter Ansell made a last-minute attempt to postpone the final hearing of bankruptcy proceedings, which followed months of pursuing recusal applications and levelling bizarre allegations against the Victorian Legal Services Board.
Justice Kylie Downes of the Federal Court said that while Kuksal, Xu, and Ansell may have only requested a one-week adjournment, it was more likely the creditor’s petition would be “delayed indefinitely”.
This was particularly because the application contained a number of matters that would have required separate hearings, and these would be “impossible” to have determined prior to the final hearing.
The application to postpone was refused, and the final hearing will continue as scheduled on 28 and 29 July.
Justice Downes noted Kuksal, Xu, and Ansell had “more than ample time” to prepare for the hearing since the creditor’s petition was filed in February 2025 and when it was set down for hearing in June.
“It would be contrary to the overarching purpose of the hearing of the creditor’s petition to be delayed in these circumstances,” she said.
The Federal Court also noted the three respondents sought determinations for claims of economic loss and contempt, but both were dismissed by Justice Michael Lee earlier this month.
In that hearing, Justice Lee said Kuksal, Xu, and Ansell’s matter demonstrated the difficulties in dealing with self-represented litigants.
“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.
Justice Lee also referenced the “amount of judicial time” spent in attempting to deal with the respondent’s many applications.
“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.
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.
The case: Victorian Legal Services Board v Kuksal (Adjournment of Creditor’s Petition) [2025] FCA 852.
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
