AUSCRIPT AUSTRALASIA PTY LIMITED
ACN 110 028 825

T: 1800 AUSCRIPT (1800 287 274)         
E: clientservices@auscript.com.au           
W: www.auscript.com.au	

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

O/N H-774162
	FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

	CEREMONIAL SITTING OF THE FULL COURT FOR THE

	WELCOME OF THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE LEE

PRESIDING JUDGES:

THE HONOURABLE JAMES ALLSOP AO, CHIEF JUSTICE
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE GREENWOOD
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE RARES
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE BESANKO
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE FLICK
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE PERRAM
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE JAGOT
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE FOSTER
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE NICHOLAS
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE YATES
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE KATZMANN
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE ROBERTSON 
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MURPHY
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE GRIFFITHS
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE FARRELL
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE WIGNEY
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE GLEESON
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MARKOVIC
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE BROMWICH
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE BURLEY
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE LEE

SYDNEY

9.31 AM, FRIDAY, 21 APRIL 2017

Copyright in Transcript is owned by the Commonwealth of Australia.  Apart from any use permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 you are not permitted to reproduce, adapt, re-transmit or distribute the Transcript material in any form or by any means without seeking prior written approval from the Federal Court of Australia. 
ALLSOP CJ:   I would like to welcome everyone to the court for ceremonial welcome of Justice Lee.  Justice Lee, I’ve welcomed you before at your private swearing-in.  Let me publicly say how pleased we are that you are here and begun your work as a Judge.  Mr Attorney.

THE HON G. BRANDIS QC:   May it please the court.  May I begin by acknowledging the peoples of the Eora Nation, the traditional custodians of the Sydney area, and pay my respects to all of Australia’s indigenous peoples.  It’s a great pleasure to be here today on behalf of the government and the people of Australia to congratulate your Honour Justice Lee on your appointment to this court.  The presence here of so many members of the judiciary and of the profession is a testament to the high esteem in which your Honour is held.  May I particularly acknowledge the distinguished presence of the Honourable Justice Stephen Gageler of the High Court of Australia;  the Honourable Margaret Beazley, the president of the New South Wales Court of Appeal;  many members of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, of the Federal Circuit Court, of the New South Wales District Court, of the Land and Environment Court;  several retired judges of this court;  Mr Hutley SC, representing the New South Wales Bar Association;  Ms Wright, the president of the Law Society of New South Wales, leading the many members of the profession who gather in court today to celebrate this occasion with your Honour.

I also acknowledge, importantly, the presence of your Honour’s family:  your parents, Bryan and Lona;  your wife, Penny;  your children, Thomas and Alexandra;  your brother, Paul;  and your sister, Donna.  Your Honour’s appointment to this court marks the latest significant milestone in a career which has been characterised by professional excellence and a commitment to the pursuit of justice.  Your Honour was born in Perth in 1965.  However, at the age of only two, you moved with your family to Sydney where you attended St Kevin’s Primary School and the Marist Brothers at Eastwood where you completed your Higher School Certificate.  Given what I understand to be your Honour’s rather traditionalist world view, it comes as a surprise to some that in 1985 you took your first degree of Bachelor of Arts from Macquarie University, an institution which in those days was regarded as something of a hotbed of radicalism.  Your Honour then progressed to the more congenial sandstone of the University of Sydney where you completed your Bachelor of Laws in 1988.  The following year, you were admitted to practice as a solicitor.

Your Honour commenced your career at Westgarth Baldick, one of the tributary firms of the firm now known as Corrs Chambers Westgarth.  You quickly impressed your senior colleagues and were promoted to become a Senior Associate in 1993, a Partner in 1995 and ultimately became National Practice Group Leader in 2000.  Your Honour specialised in commercial litigation, a field to which you took with great zeal.  It was a natural progression, then, that in 2002 you came to the Bar.  For many years, you were a member of the Ground Floor of Wentworth Chambers.  It’s a testament to your Honour’s professional ability and esteem that you took silk after only nine years in 2011.  In September 2013, together with Greg Curtin SC, you 
established Level 22 Chambers in Martin Place in Sydney.  Now, only six years later, we gather to celebrate your elevation to this court.

As both solicitor and barrister, your Honour has acted or appeared in some of the most notable cases to have come before this court and the Supreme Court of New South Wales.  As a solicitor at Corrs, you were involved in one of Australia’s longest-running defamation proceedings, John Marsden’s suit against the Seven television network.  This case accompanied your Honour to the Bar.  In fact, on the morning of your first day on the Bar Practice Course, you appeared in the proceedings led by Bret Walker SC.  Then, one week following the completion of the course, you delivered the submissions in reply.  Another case straddling your Honour’s career as a solicitor and as counsel is the infamous shooting of the New South Wales State Member of Parliament, John Newman, in which you represented Phuong Ngo.

More recently, you’ve appeared as counsel in a high number – in a large number, I should say, of high-profile class actions including the Allco, Aristocrat, AWB and Multiplex actions, to name but a few.  Another notable case in which your Honour appeared was Ashby v Slipper in which you appeared on behalf of Mr Ashby.  As that resuscitation of some of your notable cases illustrates, your Honour’s practice has been marked by diversity from commercial and equity matters to administrative law to important criminal trials and consumer law disputes.  That diversity – dare I say, catholicity of experience – led one of your colleagues to describe your Honour’s mind as elastic and will be an invaluable asset in – that was meant, I understand, to be a compliment – and will be an invaluable asset in resolving the diverse array of disputes which you will meet as a member of this court.

Your Honour is known for a very individualistic style of advocacy which has been described as both charismatic and idiosyncratically erudite.  Whether describing time wasting and artifice by one opponent as “Kabuki dancing”, drawing upon your love of Jonathan Swift to describe another opponent’s pleadings as “Brobdingnagian”, describing an affidavit in an aphorism commonly attributed to Lord Buckmaster that the truth sometimes leaps out of an affidavit “like water from the bottom of a well”, your Honour eloquently demonstrates that the legal tradition in Australia still retains a degree of thespian flair.  Indeed, flair is the quality attributed to your submissions in Traderight v Bank of Queensland by no less an authority than Justice Leeming.  So we look forward with greater than usual anticipation to reading your Honour’s judgments.  I would not be surprised if in the fullness of time they would have developed something of a cult following, at least among aficionados of the idiosyncratically erudite;  not a small constituency in the legal profession.

Your Honour’s courtroom advocacy complements what your peers describe as a glorious sense of humour and a legendary aptitude for after-dinner speeches.  Your Honour is precise.  You hold yourself and others for high standards and, in keeping with that expectation, take your time to perfect and refine your work.  Your Honour has a reputation as an extraordinarily hard-working barrister, regularly rising at early hours in order to finalise submissions or opinions before turning to the court 
appearance of the day.  It is not unheard of, I am told, for your Honour to be found dictating documents and emails by the family pool or even while walking the family dog.  Your Honour, although a devout member of the  Catholic Church, has nevertheless been described as somebody who embodies the Protestant work ethic, a powerful combination, indeed.  Hard working, efficient, technically astute, while at the same time witty, learned and a little theatrical, your Honour has been the complete advocate.

And all of those fine qualities which have been observed in your Honour have been graced by a keen sense of justice and a very human compassion.  Aside from practice, you also served the profession in many admirable ways.  For instance, from 1997 until 2000, you were the national partner in charge of Corrs Chambers Westgarth’s pro bono program, a testament to your commitment to the pursuit of access to justice.  Outside the rigors of the law, your Honour is extremely well read, often finding literary assistance from sources as diverse as the Bible, William Shakespeare, and Gilbert and Sullivan.  Such is your Honour’s commitment to Shakespeare, indeed, that your Honour was a director of the Bell Shakespeare Company from 2000 until 2002.  I’m told that you are an avid follower of British and United States politics.

Your interest in politics, particularly American politics, is such that I understand among your Honour’s most prized pieces of American political memorabilia is a signed photograph of President Richard Nixon which you obtained directly from the former president.  Your deep knowledge of the recondite field of Nixoniana has many manifestations.  It extends, I’m told, to your fascination with the Watergate scandal.  When I approached your Honour to consider this appointment, I was treated to a spontaneous and learned disquisition on the circumstances of the appointment of as Chief Justice of the United States of William Rehnquist.  Your Honour also has a keen interest in sport.  You’re a proficient cricketer, golfer and tennis player.  I’m told that you’re an enthusiastic support of the Melbourne Demons AFL club. 

The rollercoaster experience by supporters of that club, I am told, needs little further exhortation.  However, I ventured that your Honour’s continuing fidelity to the club is an exercise in optimism worthy of praise.  Your Honour is also a detailed aficionado of Leonard Cohen, having seen him perform live on many occasions and even quoting lyrics from anthems in court to lend emotional force to your submissions.  Politics, music and football aside, you are – beyond the law – above all, a devoted family man.  You consider that your greatest achievement is marrying you wonderful wife, Penny, whom you met on your first day as solicitor at Westgarth Baldick on 17 July 1989.  Your Honour has two children, Thomas and Alexandra to whom you dedicate a great deal of time and are a devoted father.

Whether attending Tom’s AFL appearances or Allie’s theatrical performances, or whisking one of them away for a weekend for one-on-one time, you are an ever-present and doting father.  I think it’s fair to say that your family is the great source of strength for you, and vice versa.  I’m confident that this will stand your Honour in good stead as you embark on your career on the bench.  As a barrister, your Honour 
was highly regarded and greatly liked by your peers, by the juniors with whom you worked, by those who instructed you and by your clients, of course.  Your qualities of fairness, compassion, judgment, diligence and efficiency bear out the very best qualities of our Judges.  So on behalf of the government and the Australian people, I welcome you to the Court.  I extend my sincerest congratulations and look forward to a long and fulfilling judicial career.  May it please the Court.

ALLSOP CJ:   Thank you.  Mr Hutley.

MR N. HUTLEY SC:   May it please the Court.  I begin by acknowledging the Gadigal people of the Eora nation, the traditional custodians of the land on which this Court stands, and I pay my respects to their elders past and present.  On behalf of the Australian Bar Association and the New South Wales Bar, I congratulate your Honour on your appointment.  It is fitting given that you have, during your time in legal practice – and particularly at the Bar – developed a broad-ranging national practice.  Your Honour, to cut to the chase, has been the leading barrister in investor class actions in this country for years.  The Attorney has referred to some of your more noted cases, but they go on and on.  The Aristocrat, the Multiplex, the Centro, New Farm, Treasury Wine Estates and, of course, the bank fees litigation, the Andrews case and Paciocco.  Now, that’s just but some of the well-known representative actions in which you acted.

Centro actually stands out in my mind.  The case was in preparation for trial when you took silk in October 2011.  Your Honour’s flair for theatrics was evident as somehow you managed to lacerate your forehead in the lectern in court, drawing sufficient blood to elicit concern – or a degree of concern – from Justice Gordon but then, in somewhat Byronic fashion, managed to struggle on without any adjournment.  I would imagine that your Honour’s temptation to swoon must have been all but overwhelming.  It’s no surprise, therefore, that your Honour was appointed to serve on the Class Action Users Group Committee of this Court.  It’s quite possible that you have acted for the direct interests of more individuals than any barrister in the history of Australia.  The number of class actions in which you were briefed was enormous, and the number of group members you represented must range in the millions.  

Representative investor proceedings are still relatively a new phenomenon in this country, the first shareholder class action occurring in 1999.  That was the case of King v GIO.  To exist as – that needed a statutory basis which is principally to be found in Part IVA of the Federal Court Act which was incorporated into the Act in 1991, commencing in March 1992.  The structure, as we know, has been copied at the state level.  Now, as a practical matter, it was also necessary to allow there to be third-party funding of such cases, and we’ve all witnessed the massive increase in litigation brought about by that, of course, but a generation ago that would have been denounced as savouring of maintenance and champerty.  Today, in this Court, and across this country, a policy of access to justice holds sway, but the balance in relation to those matters must be kept, and as your Honour the Chief Justice observed in the foreword to Legg v McInnes class action legislation, the capacity for 
individuals to seek meaningful remedy in circumstances where there are numerous small related injuries is vital for the fair administration of justice in a complex world.  

And, equally, it is essential not to oppress defendants with inappropriate and burdensome actions and procedures in a manner which will weigh down or impede the reasonably efficient operation of commercial lives of this country.  Fundamental to reaching and maintaining that balance was the necessity for solicitors and barristers to step into this new field – together, of course, with the judiciary – and begin the process of building precedents, practices and jurisprudence with the efficient running of such matters.  Representative proceedings are, by their nature, often large and complex.  Your Honour was one of the pioneers in this field and it is not insignificant that if one looks through the list of cases in which your Honour has appeared, we often see high on the list of catchwords, practice and procedure.  Your Honour was one of a group of barristers who worked with this Court to develop a body of knowledge and understanding of the statutory rules and procedures that govern such actions.  

This was no small task.  Whilst it is not one that attracts the attention of the front pages of newspapers, it is the necessary hard work that is imperative for the efficient running of our justice system.  All that hard work had made your Honour a master of the law, rules and principles which apply in this Court.  You’ve appeared in many significant and notable cases in addition to the representative proceedings.  The Attorney General referred to the litigation involving Mr Peter Slipper, but, perhaps less dramatic or important cases in the field of consumer protection and contracts reviews such as Perpetual Trustee Company v Khoshaba, and a class action against the New South Wales police in relation to children unlawfully arrested due to faulty bail records.  Now, your Honour’s career has been a truly cross-border one.  

One of your juniors observed that whilst touring the country with you for some six years, he has never ceased to be surprised at your facility to claim – that is, to Judges – to be a local of various states in which you appeared.  New South Wales Court took it that you came from here.  Victorian Courts were, however, made aware that your father spent his youth in Williamstown, while the Western Australians were assailed with the fact that you were born in Subiaco.  You are reputed to have displayed, on occasions, some wit in Court;  I will quote none.  However, your Honour was undoubtedly a brave barrister.  One example will suffice.  Early in your Honour’s career at the Bar, a District Court Judge before whom you were appearing on some inconsequential notice of motion insisted that your Honour read out, in open court, the entirety of the notice of motion and the affidavit in support, including – and the Judge was most particular about this – the entirety of the formal parts of each document.  

The Judge gave no reason for this requirement, but as it followed immediately on a leisurely adjournment which the Judge had taken for the express purpose of reading the aforementioned notice of motion and affidavit, some here might hazard a guess.  Your Honour dutifully embarked upon the task.  However, part way through the affidavit, your Honour announced that you neither could nor would proceed further, 
as you had just realised that the affidavit contained a split infinitive.  It was, of course, intolerable that the Judge would be so put upon and that your Honour would immediately call the deponent – your undoubtedly now somewhat alarmed instructing solicitor – to make amends.  That’s the way to wake up a sleepy motions list.  I will go no further with the story as I think your Honour’s ticker has been demonstrated.  

Now, on behalf of the barristers of New South Wales and the Australia Bar Association, we wish your Honour well.  We are sure your Honour will bring expertise and diligence to this Court.  And, may it please the Court. 

ALLSOP CJ:   Mr Hutley.  Ms Wright. 

MS P. WRIGHT.  As the Court pleases.  I would first like to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which we gather today, the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation, and pay my respects to their elders, past and present.  I also acknowledge their youth in whose hands hold our nation’s hope for a reconciled future.  In my capacity as Executive Member of the Law Council of Australia, and president of the Law Society of New South Wales, I’m delighted to be among those today who are warmly welcoming your Honour as a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia, a Court of singular importance to the rule of law in this country, to which you have already added in your time as a practitioner.  

The President of the Law Council of Australia, Fiona McLeod, has particularly asked me to convey her sincere apologies on not being able to attend today, and to extend congratulations on your appointment and the good wishes of our membership, all of the Bar Associations and Solicitors Associations across the nation, representing some 65,000 practitioners.  And, of course, I also congratulate you on behalf of the Solicitors of New South Wales, of which I am the President.  

If I may respectfully submit, your Honour’s elevation as a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia comes as no surprise to our profession.  A glance through your biography reveals an extraordinary level of experience, alongside stellar qualifications and accomplishments accumulated since your advent to the legal practice as a solicitor in 1989, just a tad over 28 years ago.  The rich tapestry of your professional undertaking depicts scenes from the High Court in Canberra, to your Honour’s home state, so claimed, of Western Australia, and all around the nation, as well as New Zealand.  Your Honour will now be based in the city of your graduation, where you stepped out as a young lawyer onto the boards of a very wide, productive legal stage.  

It’s not often that talent is recognised in one’s first position, but the commercial firm Corrs Chambers Westgarth, then Westgarth Baldick, which chose you with your newly minted law degree from Sydney University, grew in stature to become one of Australia’s largest partnerships.  And, your Honour must have – it has been said – raised the bar, so to speak, for them quite a bit because just a fortnight ago, on 7 April, the company announced that earlier this year it was named in the Legal 500 
Client Intelligence Report as the number 1 law firm in Australia and the Asia-Pacific.  But, your Honour’s ascent in the firm was meteoric, becoming a Senior Associate after only three years, and, in 1995, its youngest ever Partner.  Skill in both civil and criminal cases led to a senior litigation partnership and national practice group leadership before you joined the Bar in 2002.  

And during the near decade before taking silk in 2011, you were, as has been mentioned already, involved in a wide range of high profile cases nationwide.  I won’t mention those as many of them have already been mentioned today.  But, the public interest has been high on your agenda, and has been notable in most of those cases.  It’s clearly one of your life’s priorities, in addition to your position as a pro bono Director at Corrs.  Much of your experience often ranged into cases in the spheres of construction and industrial relations that had that public interest implication.  You’ve been an orator, presenting at educational seminars on issues relating to representative proceedings and litigation funding.  You’ve always been one to make a point of giving back to the community in legally aided matters, and pro bono.  Known as a tactically brilliant barrister, as has been said, you had a firm grasp of the full gamut of the rules of evidence, and an intuitive understanding of the psychology of the courtroom.  

You were described as the master of the permissible ambush, and one of the great cross-examiners.  I’m told your Honour’s penchant for using the word “wicked” during cross-examinations stood out in the minds of those who appear alongside you.  It is not an understatement to say that some of your Honour’s instructing solicitors, in particular, truly worshipped you, and everyone relished being on your team.  The generosity and compassion you brought to bear on your relationships with instructing solicitors was very much appreciated.  But with opponents, it was another story.  You were firm, and even something of an imposing figure when you needed to be.  

Your warning in the Ashby case that allegations should not be thrown around lightly like the components of a Jackson Pollock painting received healthy airing in the media.  And, perhaps, your Honour’s fondness for a creative reference shouldn’t be surprising given your artistic focus and your tenure on the board of the Bell Shakespeare Company.  Indeed, we see in your Honour that the law and great literature are not so far apart, sharing that power of beautiful language with the search for truth and justice.  As has been said,  your Honour is immensely fond of your wife, Penny, and your two children, Tom and Allie.  That deep love of family and the support that they’ve brought to you have been the joy of your life.  You are very proud of your children and their achievements, and enjoy spending your holidays skiing, hopefully not breaking too many bones.  

Your Honour comes to the Federal Court at a time of modern forward thinking and recent reform under the umbrella of the National Court Framework.  In fact, the complete workload of the Federal Court of Australia has been reorganised to operate as a truly national and international Court, and it’s beyond a shadow of a doubt that with your intellect, experience and love of truth, your Honour will do it great justice.  Your colleagues throughout the profession and the judiciary, and friends everywhere, 
warmly welcome you as a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia.  Your incisive forensic mind will cut through the interlocutory skirmishing and shorten many complex matters, it’s hoped.  This ability, combined with a strong work ethic, and your Honour’s ability to readily transpose thought to writing, means that the Court will be enriched by the addition of this efficient human being, capable of disposing matters in a manner consistent with one of your Honour’s favourite sections of this Court’s governing Act, section 37N.  We wish your Honour great success in this most highly esteemed role.  May it please the Court.

ALLSOP CJ:   Thank you.  Justice Lee.

LEE J:   As the Attorney mentioned, 8.45 on 17 July 1989 was a seminal moment for me because it was not only the start of my legal career with the firm which – as you have heard, rejoiced in the name of Westgarth Baldick – but it was also the moment that I met the beautiful woman that was to become my wife.  Penny is a topic to which I will later return (a comment I often made in my submissions).  

Even in retrospect, I remain surprised of how many larger-than-life characters I met in my first years at Westgarth.  The experience, however, was not for the faint-hearted.  

As a neophyte solicitor, I was assigned to work with a person widely regarded as the most difficult partner in the firm.  Others warned of the history of shattered souls and dashed dreams;  indeed, the picture painted was so stark I seriously considered feigning serious illness.  

As it turned out, I ended up having a very rewarding professional relationship with my initial mentor, and I learnt a great deal, but the first moments were not propitious.  I thought I ought to introduce myself.  While waiting outside the partner’s door I heard my future supervisor yelling at my predecessor, “You’re a thief.  A thief.  Get out of my sight.”  

Of course, my mind raced to trust account defalcations or other nefarious activity.  It was only much later, and upon delicate inquiry, that I discovered the particulars of the wrongdoing.  I was told my immediate predecessor, no doubt unjustifiably, was so hopeless, that by taking his salary he was stealing from the partnership.  In a similar vein, another of my colleagues was described to me as the human embodiment of a total failure of consideration.  All of this could be described, perhaps not unfairly, as a suboptimal approach to employee management.  

In any event, I was not thrown so much into the deep end as into the Cimmerian depths.  My partner wanted me to appear as often as I could.  This was an extraordinary opportunity for me, but even now I occasionally shudder to think of the poor client on whose behalf I appeared on a contested winding up in my second week before the Chief Judge in Equity, Mr Justice Waddell.  I have no idea what appalling solecisms I committed, but fortunately he was a very kind man.  

Although I was not coddled, Westgarths was wonderful to me.  The man who employed me, Peter Smith – who became a good and loyal friend – is here today.  In part, I decided to join the firm because we clicked as a result of our mutual interest in politics and sport.  

Indeed, as I recollect it, I spent most of my interview going through the merits of the 1974/75 New South Wales Sheffield Shield side.  Of course, the firm changed and became Corrs Chambers Westgarth, and I was privileged to work with some highly talented lawyers;  two are here today, Edward Cowpe and John Munton, and so is Stuart Westgarth, a man who did so much to advance my career.  

Apart from anything else, the firm, even as it changed and grew, gave me a professional freedom to do an extraordinary range of work.  Everything from old system conveyancing, to sales of business, to murder trials, and almost everything in between.  I was granted the opportunity of working not only with some highly skilled solicitors in diverse fields but also with junior counsel who would later become leaders of the Bar and from whom I learnt so much.  

A number of my new colleagues are those with whom I developed professional and personal relationships from the very first moments of my career.  It will be a joy to rekindle and deepen these relationships.  Indeed, I have had some professional relationship with most of the Sydney and Melbourne resident judges.  However, it’s only Justice Bromwich who has me to thank for the arrangement of his marriage.  

Of course, today for me is not only a beginning but also a day of reflexion.  I ended up in the law after some false starts.  Prior to university, I had never met a practising solicitor or a barrister.  This is despite my maternal family’s relationship with the law extending as far back as 1791.  This was when the Third Fleet brought out my forebear James who had been transported after being caught stealing a bottle of rum at Beverley Racecourse.  James obviously had a practical streak because the records of the Assize at which he was convicted also show that he was convicted of stealing a corkscrew.  

My life as a lawyer was very far from inevitable.  At the time I kept it largely to myself, but by the end of high school, three careers seemed to beckon:  becoming a priest, a journalist or a lawyer.

My first job, it may surprise some of you, was in a monastery in Kensington.  I worked for the MSCs, the Missionaries of the Sacré-Cœur.  It soon became evident, however, that given the order’s, vows of poverty, chastity and obedience, it was difficult to conceive which vow presented the most formidable challenge to me.  

I then became a copy boy at Fairfax.  The experience made me somewhat wary of journalists.  Despite this, it had its memorable moments such as spending Saturday mornings at an early opener in pre-gentrified Ultimo with the Herald’s racing team, having a greasy breakfast washed down by a couple of schooners – all accompanied by the soundtrack of 2KYs “Three-Way Turf Talk”.

But, over time, I was ultimately drawn to the law.  Apart from my marriage, which made my career in the law possible, it is the best decision I ever made.  I was not only attracted to it as an intellectual discipline, but my love of history and biography have convinced me of its importance: the centrality of the rule of law to stability and social progress.  I am afraid I would make a post-structuralist critical legal scholar despair.  Far from seeing law as an instrument of oppression to maintain or legitimatise injustices, I commenced and – I’m pleased to say – ended my career as a practitioner without any cynicism as to the practical operation of the system.  It has imperfections, but I have observed how dedicated practitioners can prevent and alleviate wrongs and also how the legal system can be an effective instrument used, in a principled way, to further social justice.  Moreover, apart from intellectual satisfaction and social utility, it has been, simply, great fun.

A couple of months ago, two performers from “Suits”, the US legal series, came to my chambers for a publicity set.  The actress who plays Donna took a shine to me and we had a long chat about a number of things including how the law was practised in Australia and the nature, surprisingly enough, of a divided profession.  At one point she asked me a question in words to the following effect:

You’ve seen the show.  What is the biggest difference between the everyday life of the lawyers in Suits and life as a barrister?

No doubt many of you have here at the New South Wales Bar would anticipate and appreciate my response.  I said:

On balance, it seems to me the life of a barrister in New South Wales is a tad more glamorous and exciting.

I wanted to end by emphasising my gratitude to a number of people.  But before doing so, there is one serious point I wanted to make:  that is to make mention of what I’ve described to many juniors as the tyranny of premature specialisation.  

It is plain that the eclecticism of my experience, although only a generation ago, is unlikely to be repeated in a modern large law firm.  Apart from economic factors, no doubt this rush to specialisation reflects far deeper cultural currents.  Some commentators, I think legitimately, see the cult of the specialist and, indeed, the rise of social sciences, as part of a need to establish authority in the fate of profoundly disruptive changes and moral confusion – but this is far too big a topic for today.  What I did want to mention, particularly, is that premature specialisation has costs that ought be recognised.  

It has been observed that the need to render reality complex is one of the features of the rise of the specialist.  I did not think it naïve to venture the view that, on occasions, commonsense, real world experience and a broad exposure to very different areas of the law goes a long way to disentangle problems that have, on examination, a mere patina of false complexity.  In law, like in life, I think it is best to have what Denis Healey famously described as a “hinterland”.  The profession as 
a whole will have a real problem if the most talented junior litigation solicitors are prevented in their early years from developing a legal hinterland. 

As has been mentioned, I have been involved in a number of very large matters over the course of the last decade and I have seen too many extraordinarily talented people working for years on one discovery list, faced with forensic choices no more challenging than whether to use a yellow or a blue highlighter.  

But back to more pleasant things.  Alas, I have a George Herbert Walker Bush tendency to become emotional when talking about those that I love.  My family and friends are often told how much they mean to me.  If I start being specific, I will commit the cardinal sin of omitting mention of someone I care about.  It would be wrong, however, not to say three things.  

The first is about those with whom I’ve laboured.  No one could have had more loyal solicitors.  On one level, it’s difficult to conceive of more disparate characters than John Marsden, Scott Freidman, Andrew Watson and Robert Ishak.  But there were similarities.  Each experience with them over the years was not only a professional treat – with the possible exception of John Marsden – but more significantly it also brought the reward of deep friendship.  

My dedicated juniors have been obliged to put up with my demands and what has been described as my mercurial temperament;  they have been numerous, and I will do an injustice if I try to mention all with whom I have closely worked.  But I do want to mention just two.  Janet McDonald, one of my oldest and very dearest friends, and William Edwards, a true comrade in arms in recent years in exploring the opportunities and boundaries of Part IVA.  

I also want to mention collectively all my dear friends on Level 22, a floor I helped found with Greg Curtin and have grown to love.  It will, I’m sure, have a stellar future.  Janelle, my wonderful secretary who, for her sins, has been manacled to me for 10 years, will also miss day-to-day contact with the floor.  

The second topic is my family.  My mother is not well and cannot be here.  I know how much she would have loved this day and I profoundly wish she could have shared it.  I’m so happy that my father is here.  I have met many people in the course of my life and career, many with the glittering prizes of power or significant material wealth, but I have never met anyone I admire as much as my father.  The other members of my family – my brother and sister, Paul and Donna, my Melbourne relatives, my brothers and sisters-in-law, my nephews and nieces – have taken the time to come here today.  They know how grateful I am.  

I also wanted to thank my parents-in-law, David and Val Landa, for all their love and support over the journey.  I will try to emulate the same level of dedication and integrity that my father-in-law showed in public office.  

To Tom and Ally, I’m blessed to have children who every day bring me such pride and happiness.  The demands of the Bar have been great on family life but I’m sure both know that I love them each profoundly.  

But I will end, as I began, with Penny.  In doing so – perhaps a tad surprisingly – I will refer to the reasons of the Chief Justice as part of a differently constituted Full Court in Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Angkawijaya [2016] FCAFC 5 (for the purposes of the transcript, I note it is not reported).  

At paragraph 3, the Chief Justice remarked:

To love and be loved is the beauty that founds many, but not all, human relationships in which there is a commitment to live as a couple.

This statement is true as a description of domestic relationships, but relevantly its reference to beauty aptly describes why I have been so fortunate.  This beauty has long endured and remains the mainstay of my life.  No one has been more blessed than me ever since that far-off day 28 years ago.  

A couple of weeks ago, I took an oath by which in terms I asked God’s help to do right to all manner of people according to law, without fear or favour, affection or ill will.  That vow meant a great deal to me and you can rest assured that if I fall short, it would not be for a want of trying.  Thank you, Mr Attorney, for the great opportunity you’ve given me and for your very kind words, together with those of Mr Hutley and Ms Wright.  I’m very grateful.  To everyone else, you have honoured the Court and me by coming.  Thank you.

ALLSOP CJ:   Court will now adjourn. 

____________________