Ceremonial sitting of the Full Court
To farewell the Honourable Justice Katzmann
30 March 2026
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE BERNA COLLIER, Acting Chief Justice
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE JOHN LOGAN RFD
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE ANNA KATZMANN
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE BERNARD MURPHY
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MICHAEL WIGNEY
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MELISSA PERRY
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE BRIGITTE MARKOVIC
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MARK MOSHINSKY
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE ROBERT BROMWICH
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE NATALIE CHARLESWORTH
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE STEPHEN BURLEY
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE KATRINA BANKS-SMITH
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MICHAEL WHEELAHAN
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE ANGUS STEWART
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE WENDY ABRAHAM
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE JOHN HALLEY
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE ELIZABETH CHEESEMAN
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE HELEN ROFE
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE KYLIE DOWNES
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE SCOTT GOODMAN
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE ELIZABETH RAPER
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE GEOFFREY KENNETT
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE IAN JACKMANTHE HONOURABLE JUSTICE YASEEN SHARIFF
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE JANE NEEDHAM
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE CAMERON MOORE
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE NICHOLAS OWENS
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE JAMES STELLIOS
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE HOUDA YOUNAN
SYDNEY
9.17 AM, FRIDAY, 20 JUNE 2025
COLLIER ACJ: Associate, please call the farewell. Well, welcome to everyone here this morning. Chief Justice Mortimer has asked me to convey her sincere regrets at her inability to be here. I am pleased to represent her Honour at this very important ceremonial sitting to farewell the Honourable Justice Anna Katzmann from the Federal Court of Australia. I would like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land on which we meet, the Gadigal people, and pay my respects to their elders. I would also like to acknowledge Mr Simeon Beckett SC, the spouse of Her Excellency the Honourable Ms Sam Mostyn AC, Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia; the Honourable Chief Justice Stephen Gageler AC, Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia; the Honourable Justice Gleeson, Judge, High Court of Australia.
The Honourable Justice Jagot, Judge of the High Court of Australia; the Honourable Mary Gaudron KC, former Judge, High Court of Australia; the Honourable Virginia Bell AC, former Judge, High Court of Australia.; the Honourable Chief Justice Will Alstergren AO, Chief Justice of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia; the Honourable Justice Julie Ward, President, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court of New South Wales; the Honourable Chief Judge Brian Preston SC, Chief Judge, Land and Environment Court of New South Wales; his Honour Judge Michael Allen, Chief Magistrate, Local Court of New South Wales; present and former Judges of this Court; present and former Judges of the Federal Circuit and Family Court; present and former Judges of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, the District Court of New South Wales and the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales; other distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen.
There are many others who could not be here today who have sent their apologies. I would also like to give an especially warm welcome to members of Justice Katzmann’s family and her Honour’s invited friends and colleagues joining us for the ceremony today. In particular, I would like to mention Justice Katzmann’s husband, Mr John Bordon, her brother Mr Alan Katzman and her family members Ms Tania Bordon, Ms Alana Ellison, Mr Matt Ellison, Ms Sara Tapia, Ms Carly Waerner and Mr Jonathan Waerner. Justice Katzman has had a long and very distinguished career both in practice and as a Judge of this Court. The warmth and admiration with which her colleagues view her is reflected in the large number of Federal Court judges who are present with me today here at the bench and the number of people in the body of the Court.
Anna, you have served this Court with grace and distinction. We will very much miss your humour, wise advice and that you care for us as friends and colleagues. We care about you too. And although we will miss you, that sadness is slightly tempered by our seething envy at our understanding that you will shortly be sunning yourself in Italy, where you will be enjoying a well-deserved break. I would like to invite Mr Tim Begbie KC, Chief General Counsel of Dispute Resolution, Australian Government Solicitor, representing the Honourable Michelle Rowland MP, Attorney-General for the Commonwealth, to address the Court.
MR T. BEGBIE KC: May it please the Court. I would like to begin by joining your Honour the Acting Chief Justice in acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land on which we are meeting today and pay my respects to their elders past and present and to any Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people joining us today. It’s a great privilege to be here on behalf of the Australian Government, and indeed, the people of Australia to celebrate your Honour’s service as a judge of the Federal Court of Australia. The Attorney-General, the Honourable Michelle Rowland MP, regrets that she can’t be here today, but that leaves me the happy privilege of speaking in the Attorney-General’s place. The Attorney-General has asked me to convey the Australian Government’s sincere appreciation for your Honour’s service on this Court and to the administration of justice.
Your Honour retires after more than 15 years of dedicated service. And what a large and warm occasion this is to commemorate that. May I also join with you, the Acting Chief Justice, in acknowledging the great many eminent persons and members of the judiciary who are here today. It’s a testament to your Honour Justice Katzmann that there is a turnout like this. And may I also acknowledge particularly and warmly your Honour’s family and friends that join us here today. I’m informed that at the door of your Honour’s chambers, there is a sign. And your Honour sees it every time you walk out. And it says, “Do you need to wear a robe?” This is the last time your Honour will need that sign. And happily, your Honour did read it. And it’s the right occasion to consider why that sign is needed.
As I will explain, I think it suggests a deeper story. But knowing your Honour’s passion for a strong chronology, let me start at the beginning. Your Honour’s background speaks powerfully to the kind of judge your Honour would become. Your parents, whose lives had been deeply impacted by the Great Depression and the second World War, met while singing in a choir in London. They moved to Australia and your Honour had the benefit of a happy and supportive home, but not the benefit of what would today be seen as great privilege and entitlement. Your father was an electrician, your mother was a teacher and a fine musician to boot.
Your Honour went through the public school system where, happily, your gifts and your hard work were recognised, and your Honour excelled at school. And your passions, in addition to academia, were very much in the humanities. Music, choir, violin, viola. You had a natural gift for languages, which you still have, and you had a flair for acting. Your Honour was also something of an athlete, being a ferocious goalie in hockey for many years. In short, the complete all-rounder as a young person. And so it has continued.
After graduating from the University of New South Wales in 1979, your Honour, with not a little courage, joined the Bar almost straight away and practised at the private Bar for most of your professional career where you quickly built a reputation as a meticulous preparer, a very skilled advocate on your feet and a person of great courtesy. I think Mr Toomey might say a little bit more about your time at the Bar. Suffice it to say that you took silk in 1997 and were a highly regarded barrister across a range of areas. Your Honour served on the Council of the New South Wales Bar Association in every executive position, including President, for some 15 years. And during that time, your Honour worked tirelessly in support of the rule of law, human rights and the welfare of members.
I mentioned your Honour’s love of the humanities. Throughout this time, your Honour also demonstrated an enduring commitment to the humanity of the people in your community that needed support and advocacy. There is so much that your Honour has done in that regard that I will confine myself to a very short list and hope fellow speakers supplement it. But I will say that your Honour was a founding member of the Women’s Legal Resources Centre. You were an inaugural, long-term and passionate board member of the Tristan Jepson Memorial Foundation, which has come to be known as Minds Count, concerned with mental health of the profession. And your Honour made major contributions over a decade on the board of Neuroscience Research Australia, a premier medical research institution, to the point where your Honour has now been made an Honorary Life Governor of NeuRA.
I could go on for longer there, but I can already feel myself getting taken out of strict chronological order so I will come back to 2010 when your Honour was appointed as a judge of this Court. When your Honour commenced, you were predicted to make an outstanding Judge. And I’m happy to say that all of those predictions and expectations have been more than borne out. You retire with a formidable body of complex and significant decisions, both as a single judge and as a member of Full Courts, in a wide array of areas of law. Some of those you brought expertise in when you joined the Court. But impressively, there are areas in which your Honour had no expertise at all, and over the time you have been on this Court, you have come to be recognised as one of the leading judicial authorities. And to take one example, I mentioned the Fair Work Act, where your Honour has sat on many precedent-setting decisions. And indeed, many decisions which were not precedent-setting, but which were important for the way in which they supported the rights of vulnerable workers.
Now, with 15 years of decisions behind you, I can’t of course, hope to do anything exhaustive. But can I mention three cases that stand out and illustrate the way your Honour has made a contribution. Your Honour heard the massive Gill v Ethicon pelvic mesh proceedings. This lasted for over six months, and it was the first class action of its kind in the world to go to judgment. There were 37 experts spread across nine different disciplines, and your Honour mastered what all of them said and tested what they had to say with great care. The results of your Honour’s hard work can be seen in a decision which delves deeply and critically into this very difficult subject matter.
In the intellectual property area, your Honour has heard many cases. And among important cases, I couldn’t resist this one. Your Honour knows what is coming. Universal Music v Palmer, the case in which your Honour had to consider whether the Twisted Sister classic, “We’re Not Gonna Take It,” had been misused by Mr Palmer in his electoral advertising campaign for the United Australia Party. Your Honour, in seriousness, gave a detailed review of Australian copyright law which will be very valuable for years to come. And it occurred to me, reviewing that case and thinking of your Honour’s great choral attributes, that you were perhaps more well-placed than any other judge on this Court to consider the important question of whether Twisted Sister and Mr Palmer had both, in fact, ripped off that much more long-standing, venerable and edifying classic, “O Come, All Ye Faithful.” I will pause while people play the tunes in their head and realise how alike they are.
Finally, and most recently in the defamation area, as a member of the Full Federal Court, your Honour gave judgment in the epic appeal in the Ben Roberts-Smith proceedings. I won’t say much about that, because it is well known and going on application for special leave. But suffice it to say that anyone who has read that 250-page judgment will see the extraordinary amount of work and care that went into it. So much for what your Honour did in the record of reported judgments. We all know, of course, and I think your Honour the Acting Chief Justice was adverting to this at the start, it’s not just what you do, but how you do it that matters. And that is what brings me back to the sign on your Honour’s door:
Do you need to wear a robe?
Now, there’s an immediate and obvious story behind that sign. It’s the story of your Honour deep in thought coming onto the Bench seeing that counsel were robed and reflecting that perhaps someone else should be as well. But behind the obvious, there is a greater significance to that because what it tells us is that your Honour needed that sign because what you were not thinking about was the trappings of judicial office. You were not thinking about being a Judge so much as getting on with the business of judging. In a word, you are thinking about everything to do with the job, except for yourself. And that’s the consistent picture that comes from all of the people that have worked with your Honour over many years, and it describes how your Honour went about your work.
When writing judgments, you were meticulous and careful. When preparing for cases, you prepared with great and deep thoroughness. If you had to express yourself, you expressed yourself clearly and succinctly and directly without florid or showy language. Your Honour wrote, I think, and sometimes rewrote, and when necessary rewrote again to ensure that you achieved that great Orwellian imprecation which was also on your door:
The best sentence? The shortest.
And your Honour’s judgments speak to that. They also speak to the fact that your Honour kept in clear sight the human beings involved in those cases. You paid them the respect of deciding their cases with great conscientiousness. And I’m informed that as one example of this, a number of members of the class in the pelvic mesh case wrote to your Honour afterwards to express their deep appreciation for the way in which your Honour had handled that case and the great care your Honour had taken with that important issue. In your own chambers, your Honour has been much loved by an Executive Assistant of a great many years and a large and growing throng of devoted Associates who all speak fondly of being welcomed into the Katzmann family. And your Honour has their photos up in chambers.
And in addition to supporting them as Associates through vigorous engagement and taking them seriously in how they did their work, your Honour has become valuable in their families too, to a point where I think your Honour now has, I don’t know the number, but a growing number of grand Associates. Beyond chambers, you’ve contributed to the Court in many ways. You’ve been described as indefatigable in helping your colleagues. You’ve been a long-term supporter of mental health concerns for Judges, and you chaired the committee on that, and you also spearheaded the introduction of a well-being portal into the Judges website. You also keep the music alive. Thanks, no doubt, to your many years on the Bar choir. Your Honour is exacting in demanding singers be in tune whenever Happy Birthday needs to be sung at Court.
And I think your Honour’s floor colleagues call you the human tuning fork, so that’s important. But just as music is good for the judicial soul, so too is exercise good for the judicial body. And your Honour is a supporter of that too, very much promoting judicial yoga, and I’m told also the judicial use of active wear on appropriate occasions. I pause to wonder if there’s another reason for the sign, but – in fact, I think your Honour has gone so far as to share your personal trainer with a number of fellow Judges, so I can say to counsel here today, if you do happen to notice that your Bench is looking a bit buffer than usual, you can thank Justice Katzmann for that. But even listing all of that doesn’t quite capture that hardest of all things to define, which is the spirit in which it has been done.
And to say something finally about that, I’m grateful for being told something I hadn’t understood before and maybe others haven’t heard as well, which is that your Honour was awarded a Doctor of Laws by the University of New South Wales in 2019, its highest honour. And having read the citation, I can say it is a truly formidable and moving capturing of what your Honour has done for the law over so many years. I wish time permitted me to read it here, and I encourage people to do so. But what that award tells us, I think, is that for the people who know your Honour well and haven’t heard of that award before, you learn something there. You learn of your Honour’s spirit of service as to why you got the award, and your Honour’s spirit of humility as to why you never speak about it.
Well, your Honour, as it’s time now to hang up the judicial robes and take down the sign and look to the future, we think what that may hold. As we know, you have travelled to Italy where you will improve your already good Italian. When you return, you have a piano teacher booked ready for you to warm up the old Bechstein piano that your mother brought over here in the 1950s. And, of course, and perhaps most importantly, the challenge of beating John in your fierce Scrabble games. Can I be so bold as to remind your Honour of the traditional tool for cutting roof slates, the zax. If your Honour is fortunate enough to have zaxes, you may be able to make judicious use of a triple word score, and victory will be yours.
Your Honour, it has been a great privilege to participate in today’s celebration. On behalf of the Attorney-General, the Australian Government and the Australian people, I thank you for your years of service on this court and to the administration of law in this country. We wish you all the best with your Honour’s retirement. May it please the Court.
COLLIER ACJ: Thank you, Mr Begbie. Mr Dominic Toomey SC, President, New South Wales Bar Association and representing the Australian Bar Association.
MR D. TOOMEY SC: May it please the court. I respectfully adopt your Honour the Acting Chief Justice’s acknowledgement of the Gadigal people. It is my privilege to speak for the New South Wales Bar and on behalf of the ABA on this, the occasion of your Honour’s retirement from judicial office. Many years ago, my mother gave my father a poster of a seated chimpanzee in a defiant arms crossed pose with the caption, “Moi, je conteste tout.” The message was not subtle. I have over the years considered your Honour might have been an equally worthy recipient of that gift. You were an opponent to whom people gave great respect with just cause.
When your Honour was at Sydney Girls High School, where you later became captain, you were observed by the late Patrick White – yes, that Patrick White – to deliver a speech opposing demolition of the school to make way for an Olympic stadium. He described your Honour as completely nerveless. That may ring a bell with some who later came to share the bar table with you. Whether you were, as White said, nerveless, is not to the point. As all formidable advocates do, you gave the impression of it. In December 1979, as we’ve heard, your Honour was called to the bar, aged just 24, having completed a Bachelor of Arts with Honours and a Bachelor of Laws at the University of New South Wales. You were then one of only 41 women barristers when the bar numbered over 1000.
You read with my father. At your Honour’s swearing-in, you observed that he showed you how to be a barrister, although I feel compelled to observe that your Honour’s early starts were not a habit you’re likely to have learnt from him. Many a junior was left sweating in Toomey QC’s chambers.
KATZMANN J: Including me.
MR D. TOOMEY SC: Indeed. Indeed. It was fitting, then, that in my early days at the bar, it was your Honour who, in turn, showed me how the job was done. Unfortunately Dad’s health does not permit him to be here today, but he sends his sincere best wishes. You rapidly developed a strong practise specialising in tort law, workers’ compensation, dust diseases, criminal law, professional liability, industrial and administrative law. In the early 1980s, the Bulletin magazine interviewed your Honour for an article about women Barristers. The article described your Honour as a small, smiling woman in a bright red dress who takes her work seriously but not herself. Asked by the author what occupations other than law your Honour might have pursued, you said, “I would have been an actress if I had had a wealthy family.” One could argue you were an actress, your Honour, but with a secure income.
Asked further whether, as a woman at the Bar, you had suffered discrimination, your Honour answered, “Men do have a tendency to be patronising, but I don’t know if that’s because of my sex, my age or my height.” It pains me to say this, your Honour. It’s your height. Over the next 30 years, your Honour established a reputation as one of the Bar’s leading advocates, always well-prepared and helpful to judges, though not so helpful to opponents, who found you piercingly clever and very firm, though invariably courteous. One colleague, a silk who often appeared against your Honour, when asked recently to relate humorous anecdotes about you at the Bar, observed, “I don’t think anyone who was against her would associate humour with her performance.” That in itself is a compliment.
While at the Bar, among other roles, your Honour also worked as an academic, chaired the Mental Health Tribunal of Cumberland Hospital, was an acting ICAC Commissioner, a Supreme Court Arbitrator and a mediator and assessor of the Dust Diseases Tribunal of New South Wales. With your undeniable acumen, integrity and reputation for hard work, no-one was surprised when your Honour took silk in 1997 or when, 13 years later, you were appointed to this Court. As we’ve heard, your Honour served for over 16 consecutive years on the Council of the New South Wales Bar Association, including, of course, your last two years as President. I had the privilege of being a member of the Council during your Honour’s presidency, another position from which you taught me much.
Although pleased to become Bar President, your Honour told Justinian’s Richard Ackland when interviewed shortly after your election to that position that your driving ambition had really been to join the bench of the Rugby League Judiciary. Your Honour has been a champion of women’s rights and advancement, both when at the Bar and from the Bench. When relatively junior at the Bar, you arranged for judges of the Compensation Court to meet female Barristers in a social setting to receive feedback and so improve their advocacy. I can only speculate that if that social setting involved exploration of the extensive cellar of the late Judge O’Meally, some of the feedback might have been lost to memory.
In the year 2000, your Honour was one of two founding silks of Maurice Byers Chambers, still going strongly today. From its beginning, the floor encouraged women members. And currently, women make up almost a third of that floor’s membership. After your Honour’s appointment to this Court, you continued to give to the community extra judicially, serving for many years on the Australian Academy of Forensic Sciences and on the Board of Neuroscience Research Australia, a posting which impressed my daughter, Olivia, greatly. In 2019, as we’ve heard, your Honour was awarded a Doctor of Laws Honoris Causa by the Council of the University of New South Wales in recognition of your Honour’s eminent service to the law.
When appointed to this Court, your Honour was warmly congratulated by many. One of them, the late Chester Porter QC, wrote to you:
I have no doubt you will be a great judge. However, I do regret the loss of a fighting woman silk. You have done so much for the law and for the partnership of the sexes.
That sentiment was shared by many. Speaking at your 15 Bobber, your Honour conceded that your practise had included little work in intellectual property, noting that your former chamber’s colleagues had presented you with a book called Patent, Copyright and Trademark Law for Dummies. You were soon plunged into intellectual property cases of great complexity. I won’t rehearse Mr Begbie’s observations of your Honour’s notable cases on the Bench except to note that Mr Palmer’s optimism is clearly not confined to politics and to observe that in the mesh case, one of the silks who appeared described your Honour’s judgment as one of the most thorough, careful analyses of complex medical issues and the law that he has seen. At times during the trial, your Honour would ask those present in Court to stand up with you as you stretched your back as though conducting a Pilates class. All, of course, complied.
I mentioned one other intellectual property case, being the In-N-Out Burgers case, during the hearing of which your Honour observed dryly that when dining in America, you try to avoid American food. Considering a recent pleading case, your Honour may now justly conclude it is time to go, constitutional mandate or not. Your Honour heard argument about a pleading of 819 pages in length. In your judgment, in which you declined leave to read plead, your Honour plainly held back, confining your comment on the pleading to the temperate observation that it was “dense”, “incoherent”, “unintelligible” and “impenetrable”, with parts:
...nigh on impossible to decipher
and that:
Trying to make sense of it could drive the reader mad.
None of us wishes that for your Honour. I hope that any apparent focus on my part on your Honour’s tough side does not obscure what those of us who know you well recognise to be your deep humanity. That and your Honour’s unwavering adherence to your principles have directed you in all you do. Combined with your exceptional intellect, they have been potent indeed in driving positive change. I recently went to the excellent production RBG put on by the Sydney Theatre Company. Bader Ginsburg was almost fulsome in her praise of her Marty, whom she credited with enabling her to pursue the remarkable career she did. I can’t help thinking that in that respect your husband, John, might just be your Marty.
With John, your Honour has long had an interest in travel, especially to the north of Italy where you have an apartment. It is expected now that the two of you will have more frequent holidays there, and when in Sydney your Honour will maintain your musical interests by taking piano lessons and, I’m informed, performing the role of an able seaman – or as that seaperson – in the Bar Choir’s upcoming performance of HMS Pinafore. You might even finally get the call up to the Rugby League judiciary. The Bar wishes your Honour well. May it please the Court.
COLLIER ACJ: Thank you, Mr Toomey. Ms Jennifer Ball, President, Law Society of New South Wales, and representing the Law Council of Australia.
MS J. BALL: May it please the Court. Your Honour, it is a privilege to address the Court on behalf of the Law Society of New South Wales and the Law Council of Australia today. The President of the Law Council of Australia, Juliana Warner, asked me to express her congratulations and to pass on her apologies that she couldn’t be here today. In attendance are your husband, John; brother, Alan; sister-in-law, Tania; nieces, Alana, Sarah and Carly; as well as Alana’s husband, Matt, and Carly’s husband, Johnno. I’m also told your brother, Michael, and sister-in-law, Michaela, are watching via the livestream from Washington DC. An impressive turnout which speaks to your warmth, kindness and dedication to your family.
As we have heard, your Honour joined this Bench in 2010 for what would become a 15-year tenure. A former student of your Honour’s recalled frequent robust debates in your tutorials, arguments which your Honour unfailingly won. From all sides of the profession, the Law Society has heard that your Honour is remembered fondly as a pleasure to work with, efficient and sensitive. Your Honour is regarded as diligent, hard-working, highly intelligent and often outspoken, with a fantastic sense of humour and a very loud laugh. The Law Society was told it would be fair to say that Anna was a big presence and always well-liked. This commanding presence was maintained throughout your career, where, as we have heard, your Honour served as president of the NSW Bar Association.
Your Honour has also served as patron of the New South Wales Young Lawyers in 2012; however, what we have not heard is that your Honour was also inaugural alto in the Bar Choir, but last year recused yourself from appearing in Trial by Jury; the opera, not the process. Your Honour has long involved yourself in issues of social justice and is known to have strong views on economic disadvantage, the plight of First Nations Australians and, of course, women’s rights. Your outspokenness remains an asset.
Your Honour was described as a steely advocate who was never afraid to stand her ground and argue a point. Your Honour worked in what was then the Workers’ Compensation Commission, where you were, according to a colleague at the time, a very busy barrister undertaking common law work on behalf of victims of mesothelioma. The champion of the underdog remained a theme throughout your Honour’s career. In what was referred to by a former colleague as a lesser-known work, your Honour, always with a soft spot for Australian history, appeared pro bono for historians Mark Aarons and John Grindall in litigation against the Director General of Australian Archives. Apparently, more time was spent outside the hearing room than in due to national security issues. The litigation came to an end after an enormous amount of time and effort on your part, when your Honour negotiated a compromised outcome that opened up the Australian archives to the historians so that Australian history could be properly written.
As a director of the Tristan Jepson Memorial Foundation, now Minds Count, your Honour has spoken of the importance of maintaining one’s mental well-being while working in the law and a responsibility of workplaces within the law to create environments which foster good mental health, a cause which The Law Society wholeheartedly supports and appreciates. Your Honour, as we have heard, was later a director of Neuroscience Research Australia, but the most momentous case of your career, in your Honour’s own words, was the high-profile pelvic mesh class action. Gill v Ethicon Sàrl, as we’ve heard, was an extremely important case in your Honour’s judicial experience. The hearing began in July 2017, with a decision handed down in November 2019. It consequently required a huge amount of work to compose a written judgment, and as we’ve heard, it was a judgment that was backed by higher courts.
A barrister who appeared before your Honour in the matter described to The Law Society having mansplained female anatomy, by necessity of his case, with the aid of 3D models and diagrams; an exercise which I am told your Honour bore with your typical good grace, thanking the barristers involved for their assistance, your straight face never faltering, but, to put levity aside, your decision in this matter spanning just shy of 1500 pages saw an acknowledgement of the pain and suffering experienced by victims affected by pelvic mesh surgeries and gave some justice to these women, some of whom had permanently lost their ability to lead the lives that they had before. Your Honour found that defects in the devices which the manufacturers had failed to ensure the safety of caused injury to those victims. These surgeries had been intended to restore the freedom of these women, but instead cruelly brought significant and ongoing damage to their quality of life.
During this lengthy trial, it was noted that your Honour was more abreast of the overwhelming plethora of documentation than anyone else in the courtroom. This efficiency reflects your Honour’s sensitivity towards the victims, which was clear to all, understanding the responsibility to all involved to do your duty well. In another matter, a photograph was brought to the attention of The Law Society which showed your Honour wearing red boxing gloves. I am told that this was one barrister’s prevailing mental image of your Honour as he prepared for Court. The gloves, he said, were ready to be employed if anyone was not being sensible.
Your Honour is known to be careful in your decisions with deep consideration of the law and always interested in the matters to which you attended. Your Honour has always understood the human aspect of the law, right from your days as an outspoken student, as one friend recalled. The Court your Honour leaves is, in myriad ways, different to the one that you joined in 2010. In your Honour’s words, it is much more a National Court than the collection of State Registries as it once was. The Federal Court’s then Chief Justice oversaw the introduction of eight new national practise areas. There was no criminal jurisdiction 15 years ago, and your Honour has heard cases you never expected, such as defamation matters. The Court is also more technologically savvy now.
But your Honour has borne these challenges well, serving the Federal Court admirably. And you will be dearly missed. The Court staff have spoken of your terrific sense of humour and of your genuine care and concern, not just for your colleagues, but also for all of the Court staff. Your Honour has always believed in the supreme importance of maintaining a full and engaging life outside the law. Your retirement ensures more time for the cultural endeavours your Honour enjoys. Attendance to operas and plays, concerts and films, and for your beloved family. Also on the cards is surely time with your personal trainer. The importance of physical and emotional health well-being something your Honour has frequently proselytized.
Your Honour’s reputation as brilliant, hard-working, sensitive and always meticulously prepared is well-deserved. Wherever your retirement takes your Honour, on behalf of the Law Society of New South Wales and the 43,000 solicitors of this State and the more than 107,000 lawyers represented by the Law Council of Australia, thank you for your contribution to the law, and congratulations on a remarkable career. As the Court pleases.
COLLIER ACJ: Thank you, Ms Ball. Justice Katzmann.
KATZMANN J: Thank you, Mr Begbie, Mr Toomey and Ms Ball. I found your arguments most compelling. In the absence of any argument to the contrary, I accept them. It follows that judgment should be entered in my favour. There will be no order as to costs. The Court will now adjourn. I’m sorry; I withdraw that. I don’t know what came over me. I suppose old habits die hard. I will start again. I, too, acknowledge that we gather on the land of the Gadigal people and pay my respects to their elders past and present. I am truly grateful for the kind words that have been spoken today, although I scarcely recognise myself in them. That said, I assume that none of you read my “On the Couch” interview published in Justinian in 2008 for, had you done so, you would have seen that the human quality I most distrust is flattery. Out of respect for the speakers, I will refrain from pointing out the myriad errors in their speeches.
As the former president of the Australian Bar Association, Peter Dunning KC might have put it, if he were in my shoes, it has been an honour and a privilege “in equal measure” to serve the people of Australia on this Court. I know that my appointment to this Court was a surprise to many, notwithstanding what you heard today. After all, as one Senior Counsel put it some four years earlier, “what notice would you take of someone whose first name is a palindrome and whose surname represents false and misleading advertising?” If nothing else, on the assumption that they were genuine, I hope the speakers’ remarks will placate the sceptics.
I am pleased to see Mr Toomey take on the leadership of the New South Wales Bar. And there is something quite special about him speaking on this occasion since I read with his father. And I am sorry that Barry has been unable to attend today. Please pass on my best wishes to him. Without taking anything away from Dominic, however, I want to take this opportunity to say a few words about his predecessor, Ruth Higgins, of Senior Counsel. I’m sure he won’t mind.
Ruth is a hard act to follow. We met in her early years at the Bar when she was first elected to the Bar Council as a barrister in the under five-years group. It was obvious then that she would go far. In every respect, she was an outstanding president. Her speeches on occasions such as this showcased her eloquence, her extraordinary intellect, her wit and her humanity. I would love to have heard the speech she might have made if I had had the good sense to retire earlier. I’ve been touched by the messages I have received from numerous people who are unable to attend today’s ceremony, by the number of my colleagues from interstate who have travelled to Sydney at their own expense to sit on the bench with me today, by the presence of such a large number of current and former judges of other Courts, and by the turnout from the profession, particularly the Bar.
Thank you all very much for attending. Thank you to those who are watching from various places around the world, in particular, my brother Michael and his wife Michaela from Washington DC, and Michaela’s parents Max and Dorothea on the other side of the continent, my old friend Neil Williams SC from a yacht in the Caribbean, and my former associates who are no longer in Sydney and are unable to attend in person. After more than 45 years in the law, including 15-plus years on the bench, I have many people to thank, so please indulge me while I do so. The long list, of course, begins with my late parents, particularly my mother, and my teachers, together with the late Geoff James, who made me believe that with application and hard work, almost nothing is impossible. Then, there are my friends and my husband who encouraged me in my various endeavours and lifted me up whenever I was down.
In my swearing-in speech, I referred to my husband in a moment of remarkable acuity as the “long-suffering John Bordon”. He is still suffering. We married the year I started legal practice, and in a little over three weeks’ time, we will be celebrating our 45th wedding anniversary. A modern miracle, I call it. I cannot thank him enough for his enduring support and his capacity for forgiveness, not to mention his culinary prowess. But he hates the limelight, so I will move on.
Turning to the profession, I thank the solicitors who briefed me at the bar, particularly those who had the courage to do so at the beginning, acting on little more than blind faith. I thank my fellow barristers, including my tutor, Barry Toomey, the silks who led me, the juniors I came to lead and my opponents. I learnt from them all.
While there are many solicitors and barristers I could specifically mention, I do not propose to do so, largely for fear of overlooking someone. Rather, I will simply adopt what Michael Bozic SC said when he was sworn in as a District Court judge, words he attributed to Donald Rumsfeld, referencing the leadership of the Taliban:
I know that you know that I know that you know who you are.
I am also indebted to the Bar as a whole for supporting me during all the years I served as a Bar Counsellor and especially as President, and to the Bar Association staff, particularly the late Philip Selth, Chris Winslow, Alastair McConnachie, Cindy Penrose, Helen Barrett and Chris D’Aeth.
I thank the splendid advocates who appeared before me, particularly in areas of the law with which I was unfamiliar. Special mention must go to the Intellectual Property Bar whose advocacy is marked not merely by a command of the law and the facts, but by good humour and exemplary conduct. In a tribute to David Catterns KC on the occasion of his retirement from practise, Tony Bannon SC commented on his “rare combination of deep knowledge of the area, high forensic skill, unbending determination and fearlessness”, as well as his “unfailing courtesy, goodwill and charm”. I’m sorry to say that David never appeared before me, but I am clearly a beneficiary of his courtroom craft, for, as Tony observed, he is entitled to take much of the credit for the spirit that imbues the conduct of IP litigation in this Court.
Tony, himself, exhibits the same qualities. In my principal judgment in the pelvic mesh class action, Gill v Ethicon Sàrl (No 5), in which he was the lead counsel for the applicants and Steven Finch SC was the lead counsel for the respondents, I remarked on the equanimity and courtesy with which the trial was conducted despite the intensity of the contest, the plethora of issues that were raised and the vast quantity of material requiring consideration. Those remarks were directed to the counsel on both sides. I am sorry that Tony was unable to attend this ceremony, but I am very pleased to see Steven at the bar table and some of their juniors scattered around the Court.
But I must correct the record in one respect. It is entirely false that I was more across the detail than any one of the barristers at the table. I was incredibly impressed by the command of detail exhibited by Mr Bannon and Mr Finch and Dr Graham, amongst others, in the teams on both sides. I also want to single out those practitioners who have taken on pro bono work on referral from the Court or otherwise, often at short notice. You, too, are a credit to the profession. I pay tribute to the pioneering women barristers and judges who came before me and paved the way for women of my and successive generations to carve out successful careers. In my swearing-in speech I mentioned one aspect of the role the great the Honourable Mary Gaudron played in making and shaping my career by encouraging solicitors in the Crown Solicitor’s Office to brief women.
As you have heard – no, perhaps you have not heard – she has been watching over me ever since. Her portrait has hung in my chambers, first at the bar, then on the bench, for the best part of about 20 years. She looked across at me laughing every day. She could not attend my swearing-in as she was overseas at the time, but I am delighted she was able to make it to today’s ceremony.
Next, I want to thank the Registry staff and in particular Warwick Soden and Sia Lagos, Principal Registrars and CEOs during my time here. The Senior Registry staff in Sydney, especially Tony Tesoriero (if he couldn’t mediate a settlement, no one could), Jenni Priestley, Paul Farrell, Simon Haag, Susan O’Connor and Claire Hammerton-Cole, and the Court Officers, in particular everybody’s favourite Patricia Bambach and fellow hockey player Jan Harrison, since retired, who kept me well caffeinated throughout the Gill v Ethicon trial.
I thank too Graeme Healey, Stephen Williams, Dimi Argyros, Margreet Shehata, Maryrose Portelli and Angela Fassoulas for the various ways in which they have helped me and my staff over the years, the Sydney librarians, Melanie Faithfull, Amy Chan and Helen Cluff, and the IT department under the admirable stewardship of David Deacon. I also want to thank my personal trainer, Natalie Sheridan, who against all odds has managed to keep me fit for most of my time at the Court.
I now turn to my wonderful staff. If my capacity as a Judge were to be evaluated on the basis of my choice of staff, then with unfeigned modesty I can truly say that I am an outstanding judge. I am so grateful to all of them for their support and their wise counsel. First and foremost, there is my marvellous executive assistant, the incomparable Terese Bellis, or as she styles herself, the “loyal EA”.
Terese has been by my side for the entire time I have been on the Court and leaves here after a total of 29 years, having first worked for Justice Madgwick and then as part of a relief team for various other judges including Justices Lindgren and Rares. Terese’s work is exemplary, her character outstanding. She is smart, kind, thoughtful, patient, understanding and scrupulously honest. And she is good fun to boot. Terese has provided order when there might otherwise have been chaos. I cannot thank her enough. I do not know how I am going to fare without her. I am delighted that her husband, John, and her son, Andrew, have been able to join us, as well as other EAs who worked alongside her. This event should be as much a celebration of Terese as it is of me.
I also pay tribute to the brilliant young men and women who have served as my associates. There is a great deal I could say about each of them, but we would be here for hours while I wax lyrical about their attributes and achievements, and most of you cannot afford the time, so I will be as brief as I can. The first was Laura Johnston, who helped settle me into the role after serving as Justice Flick’s associate. Next came my first long-term associate, though not long enough for my liking, Matthew Butt. Matt was a refugee from Mallesons with an incomplete doctoral thesis in philosophy and perhaps the greatest barrister the bar has never seen. Matt, it’s not too late!
Matt was followed by Sadhie Abeyasekara, who I am sorry to say cannot be here, but I believe is watching on from San Francisco where she now works as an attorney. Then came Susan Zhuang who, like Matt, came from Mallesons, but unlike Matt, returned to Mallesons before escaping to Britain where she worked in competition law during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. I am pleased to see she returned safe and sound and is here today accompanied by her beautiful daughter, Sophie, who unfortunately she chose not to bring into the courtroom. After Susan, came her dear friend, Jess Brent. Jess has worked in Los Angeles for some time as an attorney, much to the chagrin of Baker McKenzie, which employ her in Sydney. She cannot get away, but I am delighted that her parents, Ron and Annie, have made the trip from Canberra in her place. After Jess came Fiona Chong, followed by Colette Mintz and Sam Gerber. Fiona, another Mallesons refugee, is a published author and a practising solicitor, while Colette is at the Melbourne Bar and Sam at the Sydney Bar.
They were followed by Kate McCallum, Kunal Sharma, Kelly Butler and Andrew Arulanandam, all of whom helped me at various stages through the pelvic mesh class action. Kate is now an attorney in Seattle, Washington. Kunal is at the Sydney Bar. Unfortunately, neither was able to attend today, though Kate’s excuse, I venture to suggest, is at least arguably better than Kunal’s. She’s pregnant. I am very pleased, however, that Kate’s mother, Professor Mary Crock, was able to attend. Kelly is practising at the Melbourne Bar. Andrew is working as a solicitor in London. I am so happy he was able to attend today’s ceremony in person. Andrew’s successor was Harry McLaurin, who currently works in the Office of General Counsel within the Australian Government Solicitor after a stint as a solicitor with MinterEllison where Fiona now works. I’m pleased to see him here too, together with his lovely wife, Hannah. Harry was followed by the effervescent Lucy Baker, and for a time, they worked together. Lucy is working from Dublin as a solicitor. Lucy is watching us from Dublin, where she works as a solicitor. Happy Friday, Lucy. I hope to see you soon.
The final trio are Jasmine Todoroska, Julian Vertoudakis and Karl Ilpola, who has the distinction of being my last associate. Jasmine is now a solicitor at Allens, Julian is at the Sydney Bar and Karl is shortly to return to the Office of General Counsel from whence he came.
Each of them is excelling already, and I am confident that they will all enjoy splendid careers. Colette gave birth to my seventh grand associate in October last year. Last week, Sam’s wife, Laura, gave birth to the eighth. Their first child was born in my first year as a judge – no, that’s not true. Their first child was born in Sam’s first year working for me. It seems only fitting that their third should be born just as I’m retiring. This year, I am expecting four more. I wish the expectant mothers and fathers all the best.
My darlings, I am enormously proud of you all.
I must also thank Asbed Aboulian, who helped with the proofing of the principal judgment in Gill v Ethicon, and James King, who supported Harry while Terese was unwell.
Finally, I express my gratitude to my fellow judges, especially the judges of this Court who welcomed me so warmly in the first place, and those with whom I have formed close friendships — above all, David Yates and my other buddies on the mighty level 19. I learned much from all of them and have greatly enjoyed their company. The Court’s long-held reputation for collegiality is thoroughly deserved.
As you know, this Court has recently had an infusion of young blood. Some of the best and brightest of the profession have joined the Court. I am very sorry that I will not have the opportunity to sit with them, but I am gratified that the Court is in safe hands. I shall miss the interesting and diverse work, the intellectual challenges, the immense satisfaction of resolving disputes and the daily contact with my many judicial friends from this Court and others. That said, I hope the judgments I have to make in the future are no more difficult than deciding whether or not to delete the Constitution app from my mobile phone, a decision I have been agonising over lately.
For many years now, I have proselytised about the need to maintain a healthy work-life balance. I cannot overemphasise the importance of doing so. As Campbell Bridge SC used to say, no one ever died wondering what was in the latest volume of the Commonwealth Law Reports. I confess that I have not always practised what I preach, but I have tried and have been all the better for it. Nearly two hundred years ago, Balzac observed in The Physiology of Marriage that “[t]he more one judges, the less one loves”. I hope that is not a universal truth. Regardless, I now propose to get on with loving. I am looking forward to a respite from work, to spending quality time with family and friends both here and abroad, and to embarking on a new career as a concert pianist. Thank you all.
COLLIER ACJ: Thank you, Anna. Please adjourn.
