A man who dragged his former lawyers through the courts for years and was criticised for his “extremely difficult and abrasive manner” made a last-ditch attempt to derail the finalisation of the proceedings.
Source: YouTube / You Be The Judge
After six years of adjournment applications, a recusal bid, late or last-minute filings, and “countless” allowances, Brian Kearney’s case against his former lawyers at boutique firm Yates Beaggi Lawyers was finally dismissed by the Federal Court in May.
In that decision, Justice Desmond Fagan said Kearney’s ultimate desire was to avoid a final hearing so he could instead “instigate conflict between himself and judicial officers”, and cause difficulties to “formulate complaints in furtherance of his obsessive hostility”.
Kearney also maintained a YouTube channel and website where he made “generalised allegations of corruption” against judges.
In one of Justice Fagan’s orders for costs, he said a gross sum should be made because quantification by an assessor “would likely result in very extensive and detailed disputation by the plaintiff … irrespective of the merits of the defendants’ quantification of their costs”.
“Proceedings before an assessor, and before a panel if a review should be sought, would almost certainly be delayed and prolonged as a result of Kearney not adhering to time limit and making collateral complaints and objections,” Justice Fagan said.
“That prognosis is based upon my observations of Kearney’s entrenched habits of litigious behaviour, as displayed by him during my management of the proceedings since 17 February 2025.”
In a notice of motion filed in October, Kearney sought that the matter of the gross lump sum be assigned to a different judge.
No evidence was relied on, and Justice Fagan declined it.
Justice Fagan also noted Kearney has known for five months that a costs determination would be made and it was “too late” for him to pile on an application for recusal the day before it was handed down.
If there are grounds on which a successful recusal application can be made, Justice Fagan said it will have to be by way of appeal.
“I cannot envisage any basis, other than recusal, upon which Kearney may be intending by par one of the notice of motion to seek that the gross sum determination be reassigned,” Justice Fagan said.
“It would be difficult and very time-consuming for another judge to undertake the task. I have been able to do so because I had judicial management of the case throughout the period in which the costs to be quantified were incurred by the defendants.”
Kearney also sought leave to cross-examine psychiatrists and psychologists, but there was “no justification” for doing so. His request to cross-examine the firm’s solicitor was also refused.
Justice Fagan accepted the solicitor’s evidence that the hourly and daily rates for counsel, solicitors and paralegal staff were reasonable.
The costs were determined in the gross sum of $369,432.
The case: Kearney v Amirbeaggi [2025] NSWSC 1223.
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
