Former SA politician Nick Xenophon sues XD Law and Advocacy for using his initial in its name

What’s in a name … or an initial? That’s the question for the Federal Court as SA’s most flamboyant ex-pollie goes head-to-head with his former legal firm.

Nick Xenophon’s lawsuit against his former firm, which still uses the letter “X” in its name, is “bobbing around like a rudderless vessel” and should be resolved briskly, a judge says.

Mr Xenophon, a former state MP and federal senator, has filed a Federal Court consumer protection action against XD Law and Advocacy – formerly known as Xenophon Davies.

He claims the firm’s new name, created after he departed in 2023, is “derivative” of his, given widespread media usage of the term “Mr X” to describe and refer to him.

Mr Xenophon further claims the name breaches an agreement the firm would not use his name nor “identifying marks” following his departure.

The firm’s continued use of the letter X, he claims, is “deceptive conduct” that implies “a commercial association and affiliation” with him.

In court on Wednesday, Justice Shaun McElwaine noted XD Law and Advocacy had yet to file a defence to Mr Xenophon’s claims, and had recently changed counsel.

“This seems to be bobbing around like a rudderless vessel at the moment … we have a claim, but still no defence,” he said.

“In my view this matter needs to be dealt with, with some alacrity.

“It seems to me, gentlemen, without wishing to express a concluded view, that when I looked at this with objective eyes yesterday I formed the view it could be resolved before costs get out of hand.”

Mr Xenophon at his law office in March. Picture: Dean Martin

Peter Quinn, for Mr Xenophon, agreed, saying his client had become “frustrated” by the “lack of correspondence” from XD’s former counsel.

He said the court could make interlocutory orders, requiring the firm to stop using “X”, based on the language of the firm’s own shareholder’s agreement.

“It includes a provision requiring the parties, in relation to an exiting shareholder such as my client, to remove all references to that exiting shareholder thereafter,” he said.

Christopher Parkin, for XD, said it was “too soon” to contemplate such an action, given his client had yet to file its defence papers.

He said there had also been changes within XD itself, as litigation leader Natalija Nikolic was “no longer a director of the company”.

Justice McElwaine agreed that defence papers had to be filed before the case progressed.

“You didn’t make application for a judgment (in your favour) so that’s a bit of a hollow complaint (about delays),” he told Mr Quinn.

“With respect, you are seeking to put the cart before the horse (with the interlocutory application).”

He ordered the parties file relevant documents ahead of a further hearing next week.

“That should at least clear the decks so we know what we’re dealing with,” he said.