ATO in pursuit of Pogust Goodhead Australia’s joint-owner Charles Bannister

Lawyer Charles Bannister with Bondi nurse Dani Morris at The Boathouse Rose Bay in April last year. Picture: Facebook

Global litigation firm Pogust Goodhead strode into town earlier this year with ambitions to shake up the corporate landscape and immediately commence two or three class actions against ASX-listed companies.

Thomas Goodhead, PG’s big-talking managing partner, set a deadline of Christmas to meet that benchmark. “I am hoping to see two or three matters filed by the end of this year,” he told the Fin Review in June.

Has it happened? It hasn’t happened.

Zero class actions filed, huge blasts of hot air in the press, and yet Goodhead remains stubbornly intent on tripling the headcount of his Sydney office before the start of the new year, as he told this newspaper just a few weeks ago.

What is this? It’s like Goodhead just finished reading The Secret and is trying to manifest the work into existence.

But, actually, could the sluggish pace of the newly christened Sydney office, led by former Norton Rose Fulbright litigator Amie Crichton, have anything to do with the unedifying distractions we’re hearing about at the ownership level of the firm?

Tom Goodhead.

We can reveal its joint-owner and man-about-town Charles Bannister is being pursued by the Australian Taxation Office in a set of icky bankruptcy proceedings that would hardly boost the fledgling reputation of PGA’s local outpost. Not to mention the consequences it may have on Bannister’s practising certificate.

Documents filed in the Federal Court name the ATO as the lead applicant in a creditor’s petition against Bannister. The supporting applicants include the Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer and lawyer Greg Mackey, who previously worked with Bannister at his boutique firm, Bannister Law.

It’s a 30 per cent stake that Bannister retains in Pogust Goodhead Australia, owned through an entity named Class Action Pty Ltd.

And a quick glance at the Australian Business Register lists this entity among more than a few colourful-sounding firms that Bannister has established over the past decade, like DV Claims, CANCER LAWYERS, PAY ME NOW, Done DUI, and Back on Track Loans.

The creditor’s petition was filed in March by Sydney litigator Louise McBride. She sought $50,000 over her work with Bannister on a class action matter taken up against Tyro Payments, the payments provider that suffered a system outage in 2021.

Louise McBride.

Bannister paid her out on the steps of the courthouse, so to speak, but the petition was transferred to Mackey, a supporting creditor, and who’s now seeking $54,000 in unpaid superannuation and wages.

The ATO submitted paperwork earlier this month to assume control of the petition from Mackey, with that application due to be heard on December 10.

In the meantime, we can only wonder whether the NSW Law Society might impose conditions on Bannister’s practising certificate, given the number of creditors chasing him. We did not locate records of any disciplinary hearings.

Is that because the Law Society hasn’t been told about this small spot of bother? Bannister would surely know that the Law Society must be notified of any creditor’s petitions within a seven-day period.

Regardless, it’s looking a right mess over at PGA, which responded to our questions late on Thursday by saying: “We’re unable to comment. We no longer have any ongoing business relationship with Mr Bannister. Class Action Limited has no role in our business.”

Yikes! That was fast, and to think the bloke still owns 30 per cent of the Australian firm, too! It says so on the business papers.

We’d suggest that PGA lost a litigator out of this mess but, come on, let’s be real, they didn’t have much work to begin with anyway. YB

Union’s Labor dues

Do union officials owe their first loyalty to members, or to Labor Party powerbrokers? You’d think the former, but former workers suggest that’s not the case at United Workers Union.

At least 20 current and former union workers have now signed on to a class action run by Adero Law. Some of those allegations have been detailed elsewhere in this newspaper – suffice to say six of them have made allegations of sexual assault, grooming or harassment, across three state branches of the union.

And another 12 have made detailed allegations on the basis of “political opinion” – which means refusing to join the ALP, refusing to fall in line behind the UWU’s preferred candidates for state and federal parliament, refusing to give up their spare time to work on ALP election campaigns, and refusing – in the case of a couple of Indigenous employees – to support the voice to parliament campaign, when they held personal reasons for not doing so.

These allegations are yet to be tested in court, but Adero says it is about to walk into the Human Rights Commission with some, and the Federal Court “in coming weeks”.

This is at a union that makes much of its role representing some of the lowest-paid workers in the country – cleaners, aged-care workers, and in hospitality.

And we don’t doubt that there are many fine and caring people who work at the UWU, giving their all to get the best outcome for the union’s members.

But the UWU is also one of the biggest factional powerbrokers in the ALP across the country.

Some of its membership dues go into ALP coffers in the form of affiliation fees, in turn giving the UWU votes when it comes to preselecting MPs and senators.

Pressure to be a member of the ALP? That translates to plenty of bodies into Labor branches, which translates into more votes when it comes time for pre-selections.

The requirement to work on ALP election campaigns after hours? Sends a clear signal to sitting MPs that campaign cash and volunteers on the ground are at the disposal of UWU bosses.

According to the former employees who have taken their case up with Adero, that can amount to a direction to perform up to 20 hours a week of unpaid work when required – and that “refusal to do so carried a risk of retaliation in the workplace”.

And, no doubt, that’s something that many UWU workers are happy to do – either because they believe in the cause, or in hope of advancing up the slippery slope within Labor’s left faction.

So, in that context, what would a little dissent matter? What kind of organisation couldn’t tolerate a few people disagreeing with its leadership’s political views, or refusing join a political party?

We’ll find out when the matters finally come to court. NE