You have 0 free articles left this month.
Advertisement
SME Law

Expelled barrister accused of launching ‘collateral attack’ on firm

In what appeared to be “an element of abuse”, an ousted barrister who was restricted from representing a tenant turned his attention to an application to restrain a mid-tier firm from representing the landlord.

December 29, 2025 By Naomi Neilson
Share this article on:
expand image

Justice Deborah Sweeney, duty judge of the NSW Supreme Court, dismissed an application by former barrister Christian de Robillard and tenant Daniel Hawken to restrict Hicksons Hunt & Hunt from taking any action in NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal proceedings.

De Robillard and Hawken also sought an order to restrict the firm and other defendants from encumbering the title to a Maroubra premises.

 
 

This time last year, de Robillard was struck from the roll of legal practitioners for making baseless accusations in 2016 that an opposing solicitor had “overstepped his function as a lawyer” and aided and abetted his client in breaching the Corporations Act.

In May, following proceedings filed by the registered proprietor against Hawken, de Robillard applied to the tribunal to allow him to act as Hawken’s representation, but this was unsuccessful.

The tribunal instead made orders that each party could be represented by a legal practitioner, allowing Hunt & Hunt – as the firm was known then – to step in as representation for the proprietor.

The substantive proceedings were heard in September but Hawken did not appear. Later, he unsuccessfully sought to reopen the proceedings.

The day before the substantive proceedings, de Robillard and Hawken commenced the Supreme Court matter. In addition to the law firm restriction, they sought an order quashing the tribunal’s decision, restraining the tribunal, and declarations about particular members.

The first defendant – one of the directors behind the registered proprietor – and Hicksons Hunt & Hunt sought an order that de Robillard and Hawken’s proceedings be dismissed, or alternatively the amended summons be struck out in relation to each of them.

Counsel for the director said the claim against him was “fundamentally flawed and without merit” because he was not the proper defendant.

Justice Sweeney agreed he could not be a party.

Hicksons Hunt & Hunt said the order was untenable as there was “no basis for restricting the lawyers from acting in the future”.

The firm added the order to restrict it from taking any steps to encumber the property was an attempt “by indirect means” to tie the registered proprietor’s hands, and amounted to a “collateral attack” on the orders made by the tribunal. Those orders are subject to an appeal.

In response, de Robillard claimed there was reasonable ground to argue the tribunal never had jurisdiction because the subject lease was not a lease within the Residential Tenancies Act, and “therefore the tribunal had no jurisdiction to make orders about representation”.

De Robillard said the order to restrain the firm was sought to prevent the ownership of the property from being “again flipped to someone else”.

He added he has standing in the proceedings “to protect his reputation”.

Justice Sweeney said that whether or not there is a reasonable cause of action against the tribunal, de Robillard and Hawken “have not disclosed a reasonable cause of action” against the director and firm.

There was no conduct alleged or demonstrated by Hicksons Hunt & Hunt to justify any of their solicitors being restricted.

Justice Sweeney said the order restraining the firm from taking any steps to encumber the property was futile as the registered proprietor of the property is not a party to the proceedings and could employ another legal practitioner to take such action.

“These proceedings appear to have an element of an abuse of this court’s process in respect of [the director] and Hicksons Hunt & Hunt, and the timing of the commencement of these proceedings, the day before the tribunal’s hearing of the substantive proceedings, tends to support that appearance,” Justice Sweeney said.

The case: Christian de Robillard v Jeffrey Allen Emery [2025] NSWSC 1499.

Naomi Neilson

Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly. 

You can email Naomi at: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.