Alistair Wyvill lodges complaint against Chief Justice Michael Grant amid ongoing Stella Maris fallout

A leading Darwin barrister has revealed he estimates the ‘extraordinary cost to the public purse’ of failed disciplinary action against him would have run into the millions.

The complaint is critical of Chief Justice Michael Grant’s involvement in the Stella Maris affair saga in his former role as Solicitor-General.

Darwin silk Alistair Wyvill SC has lodged a formal complaint against the Territory’s top judge as part of the ongoing fallout from the Stella Maris political scandal and subsequent litigation.

Chief Justice Michael Grant has also stepped aside as chair of the commission in its examination of an earlier, related complaint about fellow Supreme Court judge Stephen Southwood.

It comes after a disciplinary tribunal cleared Mr Wyvill of any wrongdoing as alleged in Justice Southwood’s scathing ruling in an appeal of negative findings against former Labor opposition leader Delia Lawrie by Stella Maris inquiry commissioner John Lawler.

Mr Wyvill represented Ms Lawrie in the appeal and the tribunal later found he had been justified in describing Justice Southwood’s findings as “politically partisan” and calling into question his fitness to sit on the bench.

In his complaint against Chief Justice Grant, Mr Wyvill is critical of the judge’s involvement in the saga in his former role as Solicitor-General under the then Country Liberal government.

The barrister reveals he estimates the “extraordinary cost to the public purse” in the failed disciplinary action against him would have been in the order of $2m.

“The Law Society has been humiliated nationally by the proceedings against (solicitor) Cathy Spurr and me and felt obliged to agree to pay $550,000 towards my costs even though it has a statutory protection from any costs liability for enforcement proceedings taken in good faith,” he wrote.

Alistair Wyvill SC has lodged complaints with the Judicial Commission against two Supreme Court judges.

Mr Wyvill said he rejected a last minute offer to settle the dispute which would have led to “a serious injustice” and which he claims would have aligned with the interests of both Justice Southwood and Chief Justice Grant.

“If it was successful and both Cathy Spurr and I had both capitulated, in all likelihood no-one could ever credibly have made a complaint about the outcome in Lawrie v Lawler and no one would have made this complaint,” he wrote.

“Even if … I had agreed to a settlement the weekend before the hearing and made an admission that, somehow mistakenly, I had given false evidence to the court … again I could not credibly have made the complaint I have made about Justice Southwood’s decision in Lawrie v Lawler or this complaint.”

Mr Wyvill also urged the commission to “give consideration to the need to inform the public from time to time about this complaint and the related complaints against Justice Southwood”.

“For example, at the very least it seems to me that the commission should make public the Chief Justice’s decision to disqualify himself from presiding over the complaints against Justice Southwood and the circumstances which gave rise to his disqualification,” he wrote.

“Further, given the close connection between this complaint and the functioning of parliament and the Supreme Court, it also seems to me that the public should be informed about it generally in any event.”

The Supreme Court has been contacted for comment and Chief Justice Grant has denied any wrongdoing in correspondence with Mr Wyvill while Justice Southwood has previously declined to comment. Both judges are currently on leave.

A spokesman has previously said ‘it would be inappropriate for Justice Southwood or any other member of the Supreme Court to make comment in relation to the matter’.

Acting Chief Justice Judith Kelly will now chair the commission in its consideration of both complaints but in a subsequent letter to Attorney-General Chansey Paech, Mr Wyvill also raised concerns about whether its composition was “sensible” or “fair”.

“There should be no question about the integrity and ability of Justice Kelly and the other two judicial members on the commission, Chief Judge Elizabeth Morris and Judge Mark O’Reilly, head of the NT (Civil and Administrative Tribunal),” he wrote.

“However, the scale and nature of the allegations, the standing of the persons involved, the personal and ongoing professional relationships between the judicial members of the commission and the respondent judges … make it difficult, I suggest, for the commission to deal with and to be seen to deal with the complaints according to law.

“It is neither sensible nor fair to anyone involved to expect these judges to consider with the requisite detachment career-imperilling complaints against people who have been their colleagues and, I expect, their friends in some cases for decades.”

In response Mr Paech wrote that until the commission had decided for itself whether its composition was appropriate he would “assume that the commission believes it capable of dealing with your complaints”.